2005 Quality Assurance Feedback
Chemistry 3
CHE31ADA/SPA - Analytical Mass Spectrometry
(Dr John Traeger)This year the pass rate for a class of 22 students was 91%, which is particularly pleasing. There was a general satisfaction with the overall course as presented, with the average response to a series of 15 questions (ranked 5 to 1) being 4.0 ± 0.3. The highest response was 4.7 ± 0.4 for the question The lectures seem to have been well prepared, with the lowest response being 3.7 ± 0.8 for the question The volume of work to be got through in this topic means you can comprehend it all. Although it is difficult to see which particular areas might be culled without detracting from the overall course, this will be investigated with a view to addressing the concerns for 2006. The provision of printed lecture notes, coupled with the Power Point presentations, (introduced in 2005) were both considered to be positive features of the course. Despite giving a tutorial session for the one problem sheet handed out, a few students still felt that more tutorials would be helpful. However, accommodating these within the present timetable constraints is difficult and it is hard to see how they might improve students' learning of what is essentially descriptive material.
CHE31ADA/SPA - Chemistry Computing
(Dr Graeme Nyberg)The pass rate of this component was rather high, at over 90%, which is largely a reflection of the assignment-based nature of the assessment. Of the numerical responses, the most favourable were for aims made clear, assessment appropriate and assessment requirements clear; the least favourable for explained well in lectures, lectures well prepared and get appropriate help. Overall, though, the numerical ratings this year were distinctly lower than in the past. The most common suggestion was that the course be given in the computer lab.
Proposed changes: Since the mode of delivery ('demonstration') remained the same as in previous years (though with more instructional notes being made available), these lower ratings probably imply a less computer-adept class. Nevertheless it is proposed to take-up the above suggestion, and to change the delivery mode to 'hands-on', in the computer lab. This likely implies a restriction on the number of students (to the number of computers available), possibly only to SPA.
CHE31ADA/SPA/LAP - Fuels and Energy
(Dr John Christie and Dr Jeff Rowe)Most students (12/13) who filled in the survey rated this module very highly, though there was one who felt that it was merely 'satisfactory', and gave negative ratings in several areas. There were few specific comments. The consensus is that the material was 'interesting' and 'relevant'. Areas of minor concern were: appropriate assessment requirements (1 neutral, 1 strongly negative); help with learning (3 neutral, 1 negative); and lecture preparation (2 neutral, 1 negative).
The difficulties that students have with this module largely arise from its being open-ended, and a rapidly changing field. There is a lot of poor quality information in the public domain, and some were not sufficiently critical and discriminating in their reading. As usual, several students attempted the exam without taking advantage of the lectures, with generally disastrous consequences. Results were a little disappointing, but better than those of the last two years. One student answered all 6 questions on the exam, rather than the 4 required, and then wrote a line of complaint about the length of the paper!
CHE31ADA/SPA - Inorganic Chemistry
(Dr Bruce James)This component continues to be well received (4.4 out of 5) and its intended aim of complementing other areas of the Chemistry course has continued. The workload and assessment in the component are perceived as quite appropriate, and there seems to be general satisfaction on the amount of help given for it. It is interesting, though, in light of the comment in the first sentence (above), that the survey question on whether new ideas were introduced at a rate that allows students to understand them did not receive quite such high approval. This may fit with some (quite appalling) compartmentalization in students' attempts at learning subject matter. Sometimes it appears that third year students have never heard about those "new ideas" such as two electrons equal one bond, pi-bonding, or counting electrons - or feel they apply only in organic chemistry!
CHE31ADA/SPA - NMR & Spectroscopy
(Prof Bob Brownlee and Dr Graeme Nyberg)The pass rate of this component was 80%, which is quite high, especially considering the perceived difficulty of the material and its problem-based examination. All of the numerical responses were on the 'positive' side, with the most favourable being for workload manageable, assessment appropriate, assessment requirements clear, lectures well prepared, lecture rate understandable, and learned a lot. The least favourable were for help appropriate, explained well in lectures, good understanding of field, teaching quality high, and overall rating. With respect to the individual comments, the most common praised the hand-out notes and delivery for the NMR section, and criticised the lack of detailed notes for the spectroscopy.
Proposed changes: Some modest expansion in the level of detail in the spectroscopy hand-outs. However the proliferation of hand-out notes at all levels (not just first-year) seems to have resulted in students losing the ability to take lecture notes, which is a skill which should be well developed before leaving university, and which this segment makes a modest attempt to address.
CHE31ADA/SPA and CHE30EAC - Separation Science
(Dr Ian Potter)There were 19 student responses to the QAS. Overall, the responses indicated that most students were satisfied with the content and delivery of the subject (see below).
| Things have been explained well in the lectures (1 - 5) | Student response 4.8 ± 0.4 |
| Volume of work to be got through in this topic (1 - 5) | Student response 4.2 ± 0.6 |
| Quality of teaching (1 - 5) | Student response 4.8 ± 0.4 |
| Rating of subject (1 - 5) | Student response 4.5 ± 0.5 |
A number of areas of student concern as indicated in the QAS will be addressed. These include:
- Course Content. A number of students indicated that they would prefer more detailed information but less topic areas. This is a difficult concern to resolve as this subject is an introduction to a variety of separation science techniques. Perhaps, what is needed is an additional advanced course in separation science in second semester of chemistry 3 or as a unit in chemistry 4. The logistics of offering such a course will be investigated. Although the course content with regard to the amount of information presented was reviewed and some content omitted prior to teaching this year, some students indicated that there is still too much information to digest. The course content will be reviewed.
- Tutorial times to be more accessible. It is difficult to organise a common tutorial time for a group of students studying across a variety of disciplines. Tutorial sheets encompassing a problem based approach to learning in this subject where introduced as a way of encouraging students to attempt their own tutorial revision. It is still preferable that students attend tutorials to seek help with difficulties and a way of scheduling a tutorial in a crowded timetable will be investigated.
- Solutions to worked problems. These were supplied and well received by students as an interim means of providing solutions in the absence of a formal tutorial.
- Separation science experiments. Again, students indicated that they would like to complete more experiments relevant to separation science in the laboratory. However, due to the limited equipment available and the time consuming task of completing a hands-on separation science experiment in the available laboratory time it is difficult to schedule more than one experiment for each student. The introduction of an experiment on capillary electrophoresis will be investigated, subject to availability of the instrument.
| Question 1 25/30 (20) | Question 2 9.8/15 (18) | Question 3 9.9/15 (16) | Question 4 10/15 (19) |
| Question 5 8.7/15 (15 | Question 6 9.1/15 (12) |
CHE31ADA/SPA - Solution Chemistry
(Dr John Traeger and Dr John Christie)This is the first year of this particular Chemistry 3 unit. Previously it was offered to Chemistry 22DEV/RWD students. The pass rate for a class of 15 students was 93%, which is excellent given the inherent difficulty usually associated with some of the course material. All of the 11 QA assessments were favourable, with the average response to a series of 15 questions (ranked 5 to 1) being 3.9 ± 0.2. Several comments were made about the amount of mathematical content in the first part of the course. However, as this is essentially a thermodynamics section, it is difficult to reduce it any further from the current abridged form.
CHE31ADA/SPA - Synthesis
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The survey indicates a strong level of interest and engagement by the class this year, which culminated in a 75% pass rate, which is down on last year's exceptional result. I note that there is continuing concern about the volume of material and consequently, the pace at which the lectures must proceed. This concern was expressed last year as well and I must say I am yet to produce a set of webnotes. I hope to have this completed for 1st semester 2006. I note that tutorial attendance was quite poor (10/24) for the size of class. I believe some student's marks would have been better if they had made the effort to attend the tutorials offered. Every student that attended tutorials passed the topic. A couple of students commented that being asked to write on the board in tutorials was intimidating and presumably that was the reason for their non-attendance. I remind students that participation in tutorials when offered is University policy and practising problems on the board is a very effective way of learning. The tutorials are not assessed and so it really does not matter if mistakes are made as long as a lesson is learnt. I can not attend to personal levels of embarrassment except to say that young adults should be able, in senior years of University study, to explain themselves and give answers to questions/problems in class. One student wanted web questions and indeed these are available through the past exam papers already on the web. One student did not want to do an essay but wanted "relevant" questions instead. I do not accept that this is a good suggestion. The essay component is specifically intended to get students to consult texts and original research papers about certain topics in synthesis. And students are free to design their essays in various ways to explain the chemistry they understand and in a way that reflects their interest. I don't think relevant questions would achieve this outcome. Another student wanted the weight of the essay reduced. Generally, the essay marks were higher than the exam marks and numerous students over the years have passed the Synthesis topic because they were able to submit a good essay. Cutting the weight of the essay would also cut pass rates and so I am not going to do this. I also believe there should be increasing levels of diversity in modes of assessment i.e. not just exams.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Bonding
(Dr Graeme Nyberg)Questionnaires issued, but none analysed and returned.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Heterocyclic Chemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)As with previous years this topic was well received by the 18 students that attempted it. The pass rate was 77% so this year there were 4 failing students. From the surveys it appears the class was somewhat concerned at the volume of work (presumably this means the compendium activity) and also the rate at which new ideas were introduced. These are hard points to deal with as the compendium activity is a great way to get students working on and thinking about the topic. I know this because the lowest mark for the compendium activity was 18/30 and several students received marks 24/30 or higher for their submissions. So I do not want to remove an assessment task that students are obviously getting a lot out of and I note that some students commented favourably in the survey on the compendium activity. Secondly, slowing the rate at which new ideas are introduced makes little sense as the notes are available on the web and students that are struggling would be well advised to read those notes before lectures and ask questions afterwards if they are not sure of some point.
The surveys indicate a high level of satisfaction with the topic. Favourable aspects of the topic include the provision of webnotes, related practicals (which I will try to increase in future years), the compendium activity, the lecturer, tutorials and the topic. Some students made comments that indicate they want the lecturer to do more work; 1. one student wanted more mechanisms – a good request and one you can work on yourself as good exam practice; 2. two students wanted tutorials – which were offered but not many students turned up; 3. one student wanted less material – the syllabus has been the same as several previous years so I do not want to devalue it by removing material; 4. one student wanted more detailed notes – you can add to your own notes from your reading of library texts as part of your personal study program; 5. one student wanted more related practicals – which is a good suggestion and I hope to include some new practicals in the next few years.
Lastly, to any students reading this feedback I would like to stress that this Heterocyclic topic is best studied having done the Synthesis topic in first semester. It is a big topic of very high value to modern organic chemists. It has an emphasis on organic reaction mechanism and so if you are not prepared to study and learn mechanisms you will probably not do well.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Industrial Chemistry
(Dr Jeff Rowe)This section is very different to others in CHE32ADB/SPB with 8 of the lectures given by visitors to the university who talk about the application of chemistry to their particular industry. Students who have taken this section have always appreciated the different perspective that has been presented resulting in a very high overall rating for this section. Following comments in previous years, Dr Rowe gave his 4 lectures using a PowerPoint presentation in 2005, and made his slides available though the chemistry website.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Electrochemistry and Materials Chemistry
(Dr Conor Hogan and Dr Bruce James)This component continues to be rated very highly by the students All of the survey questions showed a similar level of approval, the average response to a series of 15 questions (ranked 5 to 1) being 4.3 ± 0.2. The students felt that the aims were made clear (mean 4.3 out of 5), the workload manageable (4.3) and that the quality of the teaching was high (4.4). These correlated with their perceptions of good explanations in well-prepared lectures. Thus, the students felt that they learned a lot (4.1) and understood the material well (4.3). Only one suggestion was forthcoming for improving the component, and that was to have more topics available for the second assignment. This will be attended to in 2006.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Instrumental Analysis
(Dr Conor Hogan)The level of student satisfaction with this topic in 2005 was very high. The survey results indicated 88 % of students rated the topic as good or very good and 82 % rated the quality of the lecturing as high all of the time or most of the time. All of the survey questions showed a similar level of approval, the average response to a series of 15 questions (ranked 5 to 1) being 4.2 ± 0.2.
23 students sat the exam and the pass rate was high at 82 %. Specific comments made by students indicate that they found this topic interesting and stimulating. Some respondents suggested more revision / tutorial questions would be helpful. I will try this.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Molecular Design
(Dr Bob Brownlee and Dr Graeme Nyberg)The great majority of the numerical responses were on the 'positive' side, and particularly so for assessment requirements clear and overall rating. The 'negative' responses were for things explained well in lectures, workload manageable, volume of work, and new ideas introduced at understandable rate.
With respect to best thing, the most common was 'no exam'! For how improve, the most common was 'reduce workload'.
Proposed changes: Maybe reduce workload (though don't agree that 3-4 hours per week is excessive), but this up to 2006 staff.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Structure and Energetics
(Dr John Christie and Dr Bob Brownlee)The number of responses was too small to allow a meaningful statistical analysis. The majority of students (about 7) gave positive responses in all areas; a minority (two students) were negative across the board. Their comments indicated that this was largely due to unpalatable subject matter, and that the main problem with the lectures was that they failed to inspire. Specific issues were not raised.
Proposed changes: None at this stage. A major revision of Dr Christie's section was done in 2005. It seems to have been successful, but still needs to "settle in". Issues raised in 2004 did not re-emerge.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Surface and Polymer Chemistry
(Dr Graeme Nyberg and Dr John Christie)There were apparently not enough responses to allow a (meaningful) numerical analysis.
With respect to the qualitative comments, the most common best thing was 'Polymer lectures/notes', but for how improve there was little commonality,
Proposed changes: Questionnaires not indicative.