2006 Quality Assurance Feedback
Chemistry 2
CHE21FND - Aromatic Chemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The pass rate for this topic this year was 76%. There were 51 passes and 16 fails. This is a small increase on the class performance last year which is good, especially when it is noted this is one of the first topics taken since first year studies. The numerical responses to survey questions indicate a reasonable level of satisfaction and engagement with the lecture material. Though there is some room for improvement generally. Students responding in the comments section were highly complimentary of the lectures and especially the interactions in the lectures by way of student questions and answers from the lecturer. Pleasingly, several students liked the presentation of reaction mechanisms and found their presentation and discussion useful. Some students like the relevant laboratories that backed up the lectures. One student indicated they wanted a problem set for aromatic chemistry like the one for Spectroscopy. Aromatic chemistry is not approached in the same way as the spectroscopy topic and a devoted problem set is probably not so useful. A good range of relevant problems is available through the past exam papers. Some students indicated they wanted more tutorials. Given attendance at the spectroscopy tutorials was only about 1/3 of the class there does not seem much point in offering that program for aromatic chemistry. The past exam papers are also a source of more examples of the material discussed in lectures which was something another student wanted. One student said there was too much work for a 20 credit point unit. There was a skill gap between this unit and first year prerequisites and the lecturers were knowledgable but poor teachers. We can not please everyone. The pass rate in the topic was good and the pass rate in the unit (FND) was 85%. That would tend to indicate that the material was given consistently at a level students can cope with and cope with well in many circumstances. The student's comment does not seem to be important. One student wanted this topic introduced in 1st year. That student does not seem to have paid attention in first year when the lecturers talked about aromatic substitution reactons. The 1st year notes on this are on the web There are also workshops in first year which included aromatic chemistry material. So the topic is introduced in first year. One student said the topic was hard because there was only one lecture a week. Timetabling requirements necessitate the number of lectures in the unit (39) and that they be given over 13 weeks. It is not a good idea to give say all the aromatic chemistry over 4 weeks (ie 3 lectures per week) as evidence shows that topics given in this way at the start of semester are not done well by students at the end of semester exam. Also that concentrated approach contradicts comments by some students that the lectures went too quickly. And lecturing in this way will create problems for lecturers timetables of other responsibilities. Two students wanted the lectures to be slower. This is a pleasing improvement on previous years when several students commented through the surveys that lectures were too fast. This lower level of dissatisfaction with the pace of lectures probably stems from the fact that notes are available on the web and so not all the notes have to be written in lectures. I will also add that the class this year was much easier to lecture to as members of the class were willing to ask questions and that really helped the lecturer to create a good learning environment and respond to students questions and difficulties with the lecture material. Lectures are not meant to be passive learning for students ie just sit and listen. The asking of questions during the lectures was much appreciated by the lecturer. Hopefully, that approach will continue.
CHE21FND - Chemistry of Important Elements in the Periodic Table
(Dr Bruce James)The main objectives for this component are deceptively simple. Firstly to place the element in the Periodic Table, secondly to show how its properties relate to that position and, finally, to illustrate why the element is important. The first is easy and follows from First Year, while the others are rather more difficult, particularly as there are over 105 different elements known, all having subtly different properties even when they fall into the same group (e.g., Al and Ga). This leads to some student perceptions that the aims are not as clear as they might be (average response 3.8/5 from 50 respondents) and that the various parts of the topic do not always seem to fit together (3.7/5). Along with these are indications that some students feel they may not have learnt quite as much as they thought they should (3.8/5) and that their understanding is not as great as it might be (3.9/5). While these perceptions are by no means bad, it is proposed that improvements can be made next year by clarifying both the provided syllabus and the stated objectives. Otherwise, the component was well received (responses all > 4.0/5), with the volume of work and pace of material good, the assessment appropriate, and the teaching quality rated highly. In 2006, in view of the large class size and inconvenient tutorial timeslot for many, fairly detailed answers to problem sets were placed on the Chemistry website. This seemed to be quite successful and was appreciated by the students, and so will be repeated next year. Interestingly, very few of the respondents offered any comments for improvement other than the placing of more material on the website. While some respondents seemed to want the examination questions provided to them in advance, this suggestion is unlikely to be implemented!
CHE21FND - Spectroscopy and Stereochemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The pass rate for the topic this year was 75% (49 passes and 16 fails). This is a 9% improvement on the pass rate for last year. Very good. 14 of the candidates were awarded an A level mark for the topic which shows the material was delivered in a way that students could cope with very well. The numerical responses to the survey are generally good though it is clear there was a group of about 5-8 students who were not very happy about the lectures, the lecturer or the topic. Their dissatisfaction seems to be contradicted by the complimentary comments of other students. In the comments section it was clear from responses from students who had obviously attended tutorials that they were highly valued. This is very pleasing. Less pleasing is the fact that we know only about 1/3 to maybe half the class bothered to attend one of the two tutorial times offered each week. The correlation between tutorial attendance and passing the topic is very high. I can not stress this point enough. Students need to attend tutorials to learn the skills to pass this topic. Those that did attend all passed. Clearly the class pass rate for the topic could have been higher if numerous students had made an effort. One student wanted more practice questions. There is a large problem set (more than 100 different problems) with answers, there are past exam papers and there are three problems in the laboratory program. That is enough. One student wanted more assessments to give feedback on progression of understanding. The laboratory problems given during semester help with this and attendance at tutorials where problems were studied in detail would also help. One student wanted more tutorials. Given the low level of attendance at the current program, no more tutorials will be offered. One student commented this topic had a high assignment workload. This is not true. There are no assigments for this topic. The only assessment is the exam at the end of semester. There are three small problems required as part of the laboratory program but these are so small they can not be regarded as a high workload. It is true there are a lot of problems available for students to practice but they are entirely voluntary. Students are not required to do any of these problems if they do not want to. One student wanted lectures to go slower. And they wanted more words and less pictures. This was because it was hard to catch up when they missed lectures. I am not interested in optimising my topic for people who do not attend lectures. I assume you enrol in the subject with the intention of attending the lectures, tutorials and laboratories offered. If you do this I think you will find the notes, problems, past exam papers, laboratory exercises and lecturer answers to specific questions are good. One student wanted more help from demonstrators. The demonstrators I know in the laboratory program are very helpful so I am not sure why the student particularly wanted more help.
CHE22DEV/RWD - Carbonyl Chemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The carbonyl chemistry topic had 51 students take it this year, 33 responded to the survey. The pass rate in the topic was a very disappointing 48% (2005, 55%; 2004, 66%). More than half the class failed the topic. This was due in part to the appearance at the exam of 13 candidates who had not attended any lectures or attempted any of the revisionary assignments but presumably felt they could take the exam because they had downloaded the notes. Only 4 of those students passed. This type of approach to University level studies is very poor and I do not encourage the attitude that "I have downloaded it therefore I know it". As more than half the class found out, if you can not do what I clearly set out in the aims in the first part of the downloadable notes and describe and practice during semester, then you will fail.
The poor class performance does not seem to be a function of the material presented. The respondents to the survey rated the topic very highly. On most questions on the survey the Carbonyl topic rated 1st or 2nd when compared to the other DEV topics. I am concerned about the somewhat lower rating given in response to Q10 which suggests that the students felt there was too much work associated with the topic. This makes no sense since the only work required was the 1.5 h exam. There were some revisionary assignments during the semester, but they were voluntary and only about 20% of the class bothered to do them anyway.
In regard to student comments, on the positive side there were many comments complimenting the lecturer, the online notes, the revisionary assignments and the tutorials at the end of the lectures. Some students also made suggestions for change: 1. One student wanted the assignments to be worth more. I can not see that would be a good idea given that only a few students bothered to do them and the class already feels that the voluntary assignments constitute too much work for the topic. 2. One student wanted more summary sheets. Detailed notes were provided online. If I give lectures and notes and mark revisionary problem sets, I think students should do their own summary sheets as part of their study plan. 3. Six students wanted more tutorials for the topic. Two tutorial sessions were run in the last two lecture slots. Only one or two students bothered to look at the past exam papers or notes or revisionary problem sets before the tutorials so they at least had a question to ask. On that basis, the request for more tutorials seems to be no more than a request for more lecturing while students passively listen. Unless something changes the provision of detailed lecture notes, revisionary problem sets and a good textbook with associated interactive website and past exam papers with solutions is more than enough resources for students to study the topic without tutorials. 4. Four students asked that the pace of lectures be slower. This is a problem or comment I have had from students for several years. I have made changes to the way I lecture to accommodate the fact that I tend to talk quickly at times. I have put my notes on the web so students don't have to write notes or complicated diagrams. Furthermore, I really like it when students ask questions because they want to know more about a point or they missed something I said. But very few if any people in the class made the effort to ask a question. I even try during lectures to stop at times and ask a few questions of the class but on many occasions this semester most students would not even raise their hand for a simple yes or no question. That impassive approach by students is very frustrating. If students want a better lecture experience, participate when asked.
I hope the Carbonyl class next year will make a much better effort to come to grips with the material which a number of students passed at an A grade level this year. So it can be done.
CHE22DEV/RWD - Applied Spectroscopy and Reaction Mechanisms
(Dr Graeme Nyberg and Dr John Traeger)The most favourable numerical responses were for workload manageable, assessment appropriate, assessment requirements clear, and lectures well prepared. The least favourable were for appropriate amount of help, see how parts fit together, and gained good understanding. The former group incorporated (and extended) all those of last year, while the latter group had only one in common.
With respect to best thing, there were a variety of comments, the most common being 'kinetics notes'; for how improve, the most common was 'more spectroscopy notes'.
Proposed changes: This component will be discontinued in 2007.
CHE22DEV/RWD - Biological Chemistry
(Dr Bruce James and Dr Bob Brownlee)Overall this unit was well received with an overall rating of 4.1/5. The individual ratings on the other questions were also close to this number.
In general the students found this topic interesting, relevant and engaging. Almost all the subject material involves application of concepts from First year and Second year (semester 1) courses. Many students commented positively on the quality of the lecturers, the stories relating this topic to the real world and the passionate presentation by the lecturers.
There were adverse comments about the venue and the equipment in the lecture room.
There were mixed views on the lecture material. One half is on the web and one half not. Some students would like it all on the web, and more of this is planned.
Some students would like more tutorials, and an effort will be made to accommodate these within the timetable restrictions.
CHE22DEV/RWD/CWQ - Analytical Chemistry
(Dr Conor Hogan)The survey results point to a high level of satisfaction with the topic and the way in which it was delivered; 87% of students rated the topic as good or higher and 88% rated the lecturing as good or higher. I had restructured the content of the lecture notes somewhat for this topic and I note a number of positive comments in the student responses to the effect that the course was presented in clear and logical way. One respondent complained about my handwriting. I'll work on it!
Of the approx 60 students sitting the exam for this topic, 40% failed. The decrease in the pass rate is disappointing, it seems that the increased number of tutorials laid on, while benefiting the higher end of the class, has failed to have the desired effect on the lower end. It is clear that the issue of low lecture and tutorial attendance rates need to be addressed.
CHE22DEV/RWD - Solid State and Materials Chemistry
(Dr Graeme Nyberg and Dr Bruce James)The most favourable numerical responses were for workload manageable, lectures well prepared and overall teaching quality, and the least favourable were for things explained well, gained good understanding, and learned a lot. In the former group, 2/3 were common to last year, but in the latter group 2/3 weren't. Interestingly, one of these was in the most favourable group last year.
There was no common best thing, while for how improve a fairly common comment was 'more notes'.
Proposed changes: While more handout notes were supplied this year than last, it seems as though continuing this trend would be viewed favourably.
CHE22DEV/RWD/CWQ - Water Quality
(Dr Ian Potter)This unit was a popular choice for study in 2006 with 53 students enrolled in CHE22DEV and/or CHE22RWD and another 16 students enrolled in CHE22CWQ. Overall, the responses from the Quality Assurance of Unit survey were positive and students were satisfied with the content and delivery of the unit as indicated by scores of:
- 4.6/5 for "how would you rate this topic" (up from 4.3/5 in 2005)
- 4.8/5 for "the quality of teaching was high" (up from 4.4/5 in 2005), and
- 4.4/5 for "I have learned a lot in this topic" (up from 3.8/5 in 2005)
A few students made the effort to note some comments on the QAU survey. These comments provide a valuable means of student feedback. Often, they come from students that are dissatisfied with various aspects of the topic. There comments let me identify areas that might be able to be corrected to improve the overall learning experience for subsequent students. On the other hand, the positive comments tended by some students on their learning experience throughout the topic provide a valuable reinforcement that, at least, I'm doing something right in my teaching! Some of these student comments and my responses (where appropriate) from the 2006 QAU survey are:
- "Helpful to have on-line assignments for each unit to make sure the material is sinking in". Traditionally, the Department of Chemistry has keep the relevant learning material "in-house" through the chemistry server and this has precluded the development of real on-line learning aids. The opportunity of using WebCT for on-line learning assignments will be investigated.
- "Show more instruments". Similar variations of this comment regularly appear. This is difficult to organize due to OHS requirements and having to move equipment across campus to lecture location. The use of on-line visual demonstration material will be investigated.
- "Lecture notes were well prepared but there was too much information". Similar comments from a minority of students. Of course, some students, if not a majority, would prefer there to be less unit content. However, there needs to be a certain standards because, after all, you are gaining a university education that meets the requirements of professional accreditation. The course content with regard to the amount of information and the order of presentation will continue to be reviewed.
- "Too many questions on tutorial sheets". A popular complaint from a minority of students but, nonetheless, deserving of a response. Students need to remember that the tutorial sheets are designed to aid revision by applying a "question solving approach" to learning of the topic material. All answers are readily available from the lecture notes or the prescribed textbook. This is best done during and immediately at the completion of each topic rather than leaving all the revision to just before the exam.
- "Solutions to tutorial problems involving calculations to be more readily available". Worked answers to problems involving calculations were regularly demonstrated in tutorials. Students that were unable to attend tutorials because of a genuine reason were offered assistance with difficult tutorial problems at a convenient time. The benefits of supplying these worked solutions on the web will be investigated.
- "More funnier pracs". A "lighter" comment from one student. This is difficult to respond too as everyone has their own particular sense of humour. Also, a chemical laboratory is not a place to be joking about in and, anyway, science is a serious subject!