2007 Quality Assurance Feedback
Chemistry 2
CHE21FND - Stereochemistry + Carbonyl Chemistry I
(Dr Andrew Hughes)There were 75 candidates who obtained a 57% pass rate for this topic. This topic has not been offerd in this format previously. The Stereochemistry section was essentially as it has been in previous years and this was handled reasonably well by the class. The Carbonyl material was drawn from a 13 lecture topic that has been given in second semester in earlier years and this section was handled very poorly. It would appear the class is not ready for Carbonyl Chemistry in 1st semester and attempts will be made to move it back into second semester. This is supported by some student comments that mechanisms were complicated and therefore would be better placed in second semester after students had gained more experience.
In regard to the survey numerical questions, it appears the class has some concern about the workload for the unit. It is not clear why this is the case as the only assessment was the exam. There was tutorial support for Stereochemistry and one tutorial was offered to review Carbonyl material. Only about half the class attended the tutorials. There were numerous requests for more tutorials. There were also requests for assessed assignments during semester. For such a large class this represents a substantial increase in workload and evidence shows it will also generate a lot of resentment from students about increased workload. So this idea will not be pursued. Other points made through the numerical questions seem to be generally ok including the quality of the teaching, well prepared lectures and good explanation of lecture material.
Very few students chose to provide comments about the topic which is interpreted as general satisfaction with the material and its presentation. More assessments to force revision was requested. University study is about private learning and if students have learning difficulties they should be aware that the Faculty offers study assistance. Otherwise it is our assumption as lecturers that students want to be here and so do not need to be "forced" to do anything. A number of students thought the tutorial program for Stereochemistry was good and helpful and this program will be continued.
An objection to having 3 different lecture topics per week was made. I assume the preference would be having topics block taught. The problem with that mode is that exams are currently at the end of semester and material block taught at the start of semester is usually not handled very well in the end of semester exams. So our units are not block taught and this means students are studying all three topic areas right up to exams. This helps ensure material is fresh and familiar to students.
It was felt there was a heavy text content to lectures and not enough information on how to answer questions in the exam. My purpose in these lectures is not to simply give answers to questions. It is to initiate and pursue a course of education. Students should be aware that examinations should only sample a small selection of what you learn. They are not a chance to tell the lecturer ALL that you know (and then forget it!). So material that is not included on exams in any one year is part of that education. Textbooks have been refined over the years to provide a good introduction to fields and I will continue to rely on them. The class should also note that tutorial support was provided for the Stereochemistry section and its focus was on how to answer questions including the exam.
There was comment there was a lack of revisionary worksheets for Carbonyl that were offered in other years. The new 6 lecture format is not conducive in my opinion to using those worksheets as a revisionary tool especially as that part of the topic was covered in the run up to exams. If the format of lectures changes I will consider using them again. Despite a fair number of general comments from students that focussed on reducing work, notes, assessment etc, some wanted more detail while others wanted more Carbonyl questions. Well of course there is the textbook and numerous other books in the library. And there are several past exam papers with and without answers. And I can not please everyone.
Some did not like having lectures in Glenn College. Two points. Firstly, I have very little control over where I teach as this is decided by the University taking into account available rooms and class size. Secondly, I think Glenn College is a fairly good venue as most other rooms in the University have flat floors and students have complained in the past about not being able to see what is happening for all the heads in the way.
Some felt I was not as helpful as I might have been. There is some merit in this complaint and I apologise if I was not available when those students needed help. I did have extensive discussions with many students in the class and I think most of those people would say I gave a strong level of assistance to them. My only excuse is the ever increasing workload the University gives me to do which takes me away from students and research.
CHE21FND - Chemistry of Important Elements in the Periodic Table
(Dr Bruce James)This component continues to be appreciated by the approx. 60% of the class who responded to the questionnaire (mean score of 4.0/5.0. It was felt that the quality of teaching was high (mean 4.3), the well-prepared lectures explained the material well (4.1) at a rate conducive to understanding (4.2), the workload was manageable (4.2) and the assessment was appropriate (4.0). The levels of support and help were perceived as reasonably satisfactory (both 3.9), although around 20% of respondents claimed specifically to want more notes, problems and tutorials. The provision of more notes and problems is easily fixed for future classes, but at the risk of the workload being perceived as getting out of hand. The common problem with broadly-based interrelated topic material, that is its aims were less clear than they might be, was again evident (mean 3.6) despite this year a rearrangement of material to complement the Chemistry 2 laboratory program being made, together with a concentration on a relatively smaller area of inorganic chemistry. Apart from adopting a "spoon feeding" approach, it is difficult to see what can be done about this aspect, since anything else is likely to be rather dull, increase memory work rather than understanding, and increase student workload - all of which are undesirable.
CHE21FND - Spectroscopy, Mass Spectrometry and Separation Science
(Dr Andrew Hughes, Dr John Traeger and Dr Ian Potter)There were 76 candidates who obtained a 74% pass rate for this topic. This topic has not been offered in this format previously. The Spectroscopy section was essentially as it has been in previous years and this was handled well by the class. With regard to the survey numerical questions, it appears the class had no concern about the workload for the unit. It is strange that they did not feel very strongly that the topic had helped improve their problem solving skills. The results from the Spectroscopy section would tend to indicate that students had developed problem solving skills and this was a primary focus of the topic. A number of students thought the tutorial program was good and helpful and this program will be continued. Tutorials will also be offered in mass spectrometry and separation science next year. Some students wanted practice exams or more questions. Past exam papers were available on the chemistry website, although these were not applicable to the mass spectrometry and separation science components which were new for 2007; a very substantial problem set was provided however. Several students did not like having lectures in Glenn College. Unfortunately we have very little control over where we teach as this is decided by the University, taking into account available rooms and class size.
CHE22DEV/RWD/CWQ/MEC - Analytical Chemistry
(Dr Conor Hogan)With a rating of 4.2 out of 5, the overall level of satisfaction for this topic remains high. The quality of the teaching is also rated highly (4.1 out of 5). Having said that, the average response for several of the questions appears to have fallen slightly below 4 (albeit with higher than usual Standard deviations). In general these ratings were for questions related to workload and level of support provided. This is surprising, considering that extra tutorials were provided this year and that worked examples of sample problems were provided via Web CT. Other learning tools such as living graphs and interactive 3D molecular structures were also provided on webCT, however these were not commented on in the survey. I note also that the pass rate was down compared to previous years. I intend to narrow the scope of this topic slightly for next year and observe the effect on pass rates.
CHE22DEV/RWD - Carbonyl and Aromatic Chemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The carbonyl chemistry 2 and aromatic chemistry topic had 52 students take it in 2007, 36 responded to the survey. The pass rate in the topic was about 70% after supplementary and special exams (2006, 48%, 2005, 55%; 2004, 66%).
The survey respondents were more critical of this topic than most others. One reason for this was the fact that the topic was part of an experiment by the department in 2007. For 2007 the Carbonyl chemistry topic was divided in two and split between first and second semesters. This disjointed approach was not received well by the class and has been amended for 2008. On this basis the generally lower numerical responses to survey questions should correct themselves in 2008.
In regard to student comments, the overriding request was for tutorials and more problem sets. Most of the students requesting tutorials also indicated the workload for the topic needed to be less. Tutorials would only increase workload. I am also unwilling to provide tutorials for a topic that is covered extensively in textbooks and past exam papers. Especially when one notes that only half the class made the effort to attend tutorials in first semester. There are plenty of problems in past exam papers which include answers and if a student has a problem during their private study program I can be contacted in my office or by email.
One student suggested use of webCT as a point for discussion and asking of questions. The department is in the process of making more use of WebCT and I will look into providing that point of contact in 2008.
CHE22DEV/RWD/MEC - Medicinal Chemistry
(Dr Belinda Abbott)Twenty-one students completed the QA survey. Many positive comments were made (about the topic generally but also specifically about the tutorials, practice exam, lecturer, workload, lecture notes, textbook and online questions).
This semester was the first time that WebCT has been used by staff within the Chemistry Department. Six students preferred using WebCT to download the topic material, while two students preferred the Chemistry Website. Two students used both. A WebCT discussion board was also suggested, I certainly would like to adopt this as WebCT is developed.
It was suggested that the tutorials be run earlier in the semester, this will be kept in mind but it is difficult to have them before the material is covered in lectures. Two students did not like the lecture time of Monday 9am that was timetabled by the university.
One student found it hard to do the problems as they didn't own a copy of the textbook. Ownership of the text was not compulsory as a copy of the textbook was accessible in the Reserve (3hr) collection of the Library throughout the semester. One request was made for the textbook to provide answers, this is not offered by the publisher however answers were discussed during the three tutorials offered.
A number of students commented about the amount of background material relative to the other subjects they were undertaking. The remarks indicated that it is a challenge to balance the needs of students with different backgrounds (ranging from those who are completely new to medicinal chemistry to students who are undertaking units which complement this topic). A number of requests were also made for more problems/questions/examples to be discussed during lectures. As this is a new topic, content will continue to be evaluated and refined so feedback is very useful.
I particularly appreciated the comment "Once you start studying for this topic it is understandable" and suggest that this may be true for all topics! Of the 65 candidates who sat the examination for Medicinal Chemistry, 44 passed (8A, 13B, 18C, 5D).
CHE22DEV/RWD/NAN/MEC - Biological Chemistry
(Dr Bruce James and Prof Bob Brownlee)Overall this unit was quite well received with an overall rating of 3.8/5. The individual ratings on the other questions were however higher (4.1-4.3).
The majority of students who wrote comments criticized the venue (Glenn College Airport Lounge) which was totally unsuitable for an undergraduate lecture and was locked shut on 2 occasions. It is felt that this is reflected in the ratings and both lecturers are embarrassed to teach in these venues.
In general the students again 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. 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.
Some students would like more material on the web, more tutorials, and more revision, and a better description of the aims of the course. These issues will be addressed in 2008.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)The Quality Assurance of Unit responses were generally positive and students were mostly satisfied with the content and delivery of the topic as indicated by ratings (out of 5) of:
- 4.2 for "how would you rate this topic" (4.6 in 2006)
- 4.5 for "the quality of teaching was high" (4.8 in 2006)
- 3.9 for "I have learned a lot in this topic" (4.4 in 2006)
The number of students doing this topic was 48 (DEV/RWD/MEC = 30; CWQ = 18).
Favorable student comments from the QAU responses included:
- "the workload was manageable"
- "lab experiments related well to lectures"
- "lecturer speaks clearly and notes are easy to follow"
- "lecturer hinted at possible exam questions"
Some areas of student concern as indicated in the QAU responses were:
- "lectures need to be more interesting with more demonstrations". This is difficult to organize due to OHS requirements and having to move large equipment across campus. The laboratory experiments are designed to reinforce lecture material.
- "too much to learn, drop one section". I don’t believe there is too much to learn, nevertheless, the course content with regard to the amount of information will be reviewed.
- "things in lecture not related to exam". I make no apology for continuing to abide to the notion that a university education should be more than just learning material to pass the assessment task! Students are encouraged to learn the material discussed in lectures by developing responses to the supplied revision questions. Students are informed that these revision questions form the basis of questions used for assessment.
The overall examination result for the topic was below expectations with a pass rate of 63% and an average mark of 58% for DEV/RWD/MEC, while, for CWQ there was some improvement with a pass rate of 88% and an average mark of 65%. Most students had prepared well for the compulsory exam question. Unfortunately, the responses to some of the other questions were not as good. Tutorials were not well attended. Different methods will be investigated to encourage students to attend and complete tutorial sheets.