2006 Quality Assurance Feedback
Chemistry 3
CHE31ADA/SPA - Analytical Mass Spectrometry
(Dr John Traeger)This year the pass rate for a class of 27 students was 81%, which is slightly lower than the excellent result achieved in 2005; half of the students gained either an A or a B grade. Again there was general satisfaction with the course, being rated at 3.8 ± 0.8 out of a maximum of 5. The highest survey response was 4.5 ± 0.7 for the question The lectures seem to have been well prepared, with the lowest response being 3.4 ± 0.9 (down from 3.7 ± 0.9 in 2005) for the question I have gained a good understanding of the field. This low rating is probably understandable given that mass spectrometry covers a very wide range of analytical applications. However, the very good pass rate indicates that most students did manage to gain a reasonable understanding of the subject. The provision of printed lecture notes, coupled with Power Point presentations, were both considered to be positive features of the course. Despite giving a tutorial session for the one problem sheet handed out, some students still felt that more tutorials would be helpful. 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 - Bonding
(Dr Graeme Nyberg)There were not enough responses to allow a (meaningful) numerical analysis. With respect to the qualitative comments, the best thing was clearly ‘the tutorials’, but for how improve there was no commonality.
Proposed changes: Questionnaires not indicative.
Ongoing comparison: In 2005, Questionnaires were issued, but none were analysed and returned. Hence no backwards comparison is possible here.
Additional: The pass-rate was ~60%, and the average mark ~ 55%. The mark-spread, though, was very wide – from <30% to >90%. This is a course that requires understanding (rather than memorization). The mark-spread is a clear reflection of this. All these figures are very similar to the previous year.
CHE31ADA/SPA/LAP - Fuels and Energy
(Dr John Christie and Dr Jeff Rowe)The student response to this module was generally very enthusiastic, with favourable comments made on
-- importance and relevance of lecture material
-- lecturers' pace and style, including a few who said they enjoyed the split module and the very different styles of the two lecturers.
-- high quality web notes and handouts
A minority -- 5/24 -- were not happy with the module, and gave a variety of neutral or negative responses in the questionnaire.
The main negative point was about the inaccessibility of past examination papers. This particular module has traditionally been assessed with a secure exam paper, where there is little variation in the questions from year to year. Unless the style of assessment paper changes quite significantly it is simply not possible to make more past papers available. The other major comment was on the lack of tutorials, and a perceived inaccessibility of lecturers. There was also comment on what seemed to some students like a negative and pessimistic slant in our attitude to some of the energy problems.
The examination performance was better than in the last few years, but still disappointing. Some students have a lot of difficulty with applying critical thinking in an examination context, rather than just reproducing lecture notes. Some students did not really engage with lectures, and tried to get by with general knowledge, often based on inaccurate and unreliable material that circulates in the public domain.
CHE31ADA/SPA - Inorganic Chemistry
(Dr Bruce James)This component continues to be as well received as it has been previously, and its intended aim of complementing other areas of the Chemistry course has continued. Responses to all questions in the survey rated >4.0/5. In particular the workload and assessment in the component are perceived as appropriate, and there seems to be general satisfaction on the amount of help provided for it. An assignment was given this year (as was sometimes the case in previous years) in addition to an in-class test and the student perception was that this helped to alleviate some of the stress related to formal exams. A few comments related to some of the notes provided not being adequate. Class notes have been continually developed over recent years and are dependent on the topics addressed in the particular year. Further development of these for next year will occur, with the aim of clarifying some of those concepts that are perceived as more difficult.
CHE31ADA/SPA - NMR & Spectroscopy
(Prof Bob Brownlee and Dr Graeme Nyberg)Of the numerical responses, the most favourable were for lectures well prepared, lecture aims clear, and overall rating. The least favourable were for appropriate amount of help on ways of learning and new ideas too fast.
With respect to the individual comments, the most common praised the notes and delivery for the nmr section, and the tutes for the spec section, and criticised the lack of detailed hand-out notes for the latter.
Proposed changes: Some further modest expansion in the level of detail in the spectroscopy hand-outs. However no amount of (reading of) hand-out notes will make-up for not doing the set problems. In a similar vein, when attendance at tutes is only ~50%, it is difficult to take seriously those comments on insufficient help on ways of learning.
Additional: The pass-rate of this component was ~70%, and the average mark ~60%. This is a very similar average to the previous year, but the pass-rate is somewhat lower. This is attributable to the mark-spread, which was very wide – ranging from ~100% to ~30%. This again is probably a reflection of the work put in to doing the prolems.
CHE31ADA/SPA and CHE30EAC - Separation Science
(Dr Ian Potter)There were 27 student responses to the QAU survey and 34 students that attempted the exam. Overall, the responses indicated that most students were satisfied with the content and delivery of the subject. See below, for results to some questions (response indicators of 1 = true none of the time, and 5 = true all of the time).
| Things have been explained well in the lectures | Student response 4.8 ± 0.5 |
| Volume of work to be got through in this topic means that you can comprehend it all | Student response 4.3 ± 0.7 |
| Amount and type of assessment is appropriate for this topic | Student response 4.3 ± 0.7 |
| Level of support, help and advice is appropriate for this topic | Student response 4.7 ± 0.5 |
| Things have been well explained in lectures | Student response 4.8 ± 0.5 |
| You get an appropriate amount of help on ways of learning in this topic | Student response 4.5 ± 0.6 |
| I have gained a good understanding of the field | Student response 4.3 ± 0.8 |
| I have learned a lot in this topic | Student response 4.5 ± 0.8 |
| Overall, the quality of teaching was high | Student response 4.9 ± 0.3 |
| All things considered, how would you rate this topic | Student response 4.8 ± 0.4 |
A number of areas of student concern as indicated in the QAS will be addressed. These include:
- Course Content. As in previous years, some students indicated that they would prefer less topic areas that were covered in more detailed. However, this topic is an introduction to separation science and is intended to cover a variety of techniques. The course content will again reviewed and updated to ensure that it represents current knowledge and applications in separation science.
- Tutorials were reintroduced and were generally well attended. This was in response to comments asking for their return in last years QAU survey even though a common time for all students to attend could not be resolved due to the usual timetable clashes. I am continually surprised by the reluctance of most students to actively participate in tutorials. This might reflect that these students have not prepared for the tutorial or that they genuinely lack confidence in making public presentations. I would like to offer a comment on both these points. Firstly, students will get the most out of the tutorials if they attempt the tutorial tasks beforehand. To this extent, students will again be actively encouraged to prepare for tutorials. Secondly, it is difficult to think of a profession in which graduates will find employment that will not require them to present their ideas or results to a group of customers or colleagues. I appreciate that some individuals find it exceedingly difficult to stand-up and make a presentation to a group, but I make no apologies for continuing to ask students to practise this. It is better, I believe, to learn to do this under the relatively low pressure situation of in front of a group of student peers, rather, than waiting until confronted at a time in their careers with having to make a presentation under a more high pressure situation to a group of unfamiliar professionals.
- Revision sheets encompassing a question based approach to learning where supplied as an alternate method of encouraging learning of the topic material.
- Solutions to the worked problems were supplied and were well received by the students.
- Separation science experiments. Similar to past years years, some students indicated that they would have preferred to complete more separation science experiments in the laboratory rather than experiments that they consider are not relevant to their future careers. Students are assigned a variety of experiments that are intended to provide them with a variety of worthwhile experiences to gain a well-rounded chemical education that will enhance their career opportunities. I attempt to ensure that all students do at least one experiment in separation science as part of their laboratory experiment allocation. Unfortunately, this is not always possible as there is not enough equipment to satisfy the needs of a large class size.
- Alternate assessment. Some students indicated that they would appreciative some form of alternate assessment rather than just a 100% end-of-semester exam. A possibility is a small assignment on each of the topic areas that could be submitted via the internet at a particular time. A total of 15 - 25% towards the overall assessment in the topic could be allocated to these assignments. The logistics of doing this will be investigated.
- I was disappointed with the overall examination result for the topic as it was not as good as in recent previous years. The average exam result for all students that attempted the exam was 60.8 ± 15.3% (down from 70.2 ± 12.8% in 2005). There is an interesting difference in the exam results for the two distinct student cohorts that take this topic, chemistry and environmental science students. The environmental science students achieved 75.3 ± 9.6% that is similar to the result of 75.0 ± 9.5% in 2005, while, the chemistry students achieved 57.7 ± 14.5% that was markedly down from 69.0 ±13.5% in 2005. It is difficult to know how to interpret these results. Why did the group of chemistry students perform significantly worse this year in an exam that was of similar format to previous years and in which the environmental science students seemingly did not experience the same degree of difficulty? I will be asking the chemistry students for a concerted effort next year to match the results of the environmental science students! There were some excellent results by some individuals with 6 students achieving a mark of 80% or better and 1 student attaining a mark of 95%. Congratulations to these students on their excellent results!
- As in previous years, there was 1 compulsory question and a choice of 4 from 5 other questions on the exam. Overall, students had not prepared as well for the compulsory question as in previous years with a mark for all students of 21/30 that was down from 25/30 in 2005. Of the other questions of which students were able to choose, question 5 was the less popular, while, question 3 had the lowest mark. The average mark (and responses) for all individual questions were: Question 1 21/30 (34); Question 2 9.5/15 (33); Question 3 4.8/15 (24); Question 4 8.6/15 (33); Question 5 5.6/15 (21); Question 6 7.1/15 (25).
CHE31ADA/SPA - Solution Chemistry
(Dr John Traeger and Dr John Christie)The examination performance in this module was very good this year, with most students passing with high marks. Averages were pulled down a little because several students who had not been attending lectures decided to present for the examination anyway. Student feedback was generally favourable without being hugely enthusiastic. The single negative rating was for "level of support". Unfavourable comments were made on --
(1) absence of website lecture notes for the surface chemistry section. For the record, notes were available for 5 of the 7 lectures on the website, handed out in the lecture in printed form for lecture 6, and unavailable for lecture 7. It seems that some students did not manage to find the link.
(2) Non-portability of the hypercard tutorial material to a Windows-based system. This material is old, and has not been updated or rewritten for many years because until this year students were failing to make use of it. Hypercard was only ever developed for the old Macintosh operating system, and it would be a major software development exercise to rewrite the material for a different application.
(3) A failure on the part of the lecturers to make clear the relationship between the two parts of the module, which will be addressed.
Interestingly, there were also very favourable comments on the high quality of the web-based lecture summaries that were available. The hypercard tutorials for the surface chemistry material were found by the students to be very useful for revision.
CHE31ADA/SPA - Synthesis
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The pass rate for Synthesis this year was 70% (12/17 students passed) which is again down on the previous year. I would not like to see a further drop in class performance and accordingly more changes will be made for next year. It is not obvious why the pass rate is dropping as I have conducted tutorials at the request of students, the lecture notes have now been put on the web, past exam papers with and without answers are on the web and the syllabus has not changed substantially for several years. All of the students that failed this topic did not attend the tutorials that were offered. Participation in tutorials when offered is University policy. The QA survey indicates a high level of satisfaction with the lectures in essentially all areas questioned. As stated above, this year the Synthesis lecture notes were available for download and this seems to be well received. The availability of lecture notes allowed for the inclusion of two special lectures on Silicon chemistry by a visiting lecturer and this material was well received by the students as shown by the generally good level of answers to questions on that material in the exam. From the comments on the surveys it is clear that students like the tutorial program and got a real benefit from it. I will continue to offer that program to students and encourage attendance as that correlates very strongly with passing the topic. One student wanted more time for information to settle in. How can I respond to this? Is that student asking me to stand silently in lectures while students think about what I have said? That does not seem sensible especially when the notes are available on the web for consultation before lectures and the lecturer is available at most times to answer questions even during lectures. Another student wanted the lecturer not to "race" through topics so fast. If the lectures were slowed down then there would not be time to get through the syllabus. I remind readers of this feedback that the notes for this topic are available on the web so there is not a substantial amount of notetaking to be done in lectures. Furthermore, the syllabus has not changed much in recent years and plenty of students have coped with the material in that time. So I do not see a substantial need to go slowly and presumably cut material from the syllabus ie make the topic easier. Three students wanted tutorials and problems sets to be made assessable. That might be a good suggestion except that the University regulates very closely the amount of work students should do in units worth a certain number of points. I am sorry to say that assignments and tutorials for assessment would increase the workload on students and the lecturer too much and then I would breach University regulations. Tutorial attendance was also variable. That does not bode well for possible compulsory tutorials. I received some information during the semester and in the surveys that the essay was too long and not worth the effort. This conclusion by students is a pity as the essay is focussed on students doing some research on a topic which is academically a valuable exercise. This year at student request I put a word limit on the essay which I had not done in the past. Because there was a word limit it was possible for some students to calculate how much work was involved and that amount was more than the topic is entitled too. Given this complaint I have decided that the option of cutting the essay to something like 300-500 words (2-3 pages) is not a serious option of any "research" value (which is one of the aims of the exercise) and accordingly the essay will not be part of the assessment for this topic next year. The entire assessment will be a 90 minute problem-based exam. This will be a pity for some students who are not very strong in Synthesis as the evidence from previous years is that the essay assisted weaker students to pass the topic. I would add in closing that students are not telling me consistently what they want. Some "hate" essays, while others hate doing exams all the time and want variation in assessment including essays, while others want assignments and/or tutorials. I can not do everything to suit everybody. There is already a lot of choice in the essay topic and in the exam questions. Thus assessment for this topic is flexible. Of course it will be less so next year without the essay.
CHE31LAP - Air Pollution
(Dr John Christie)Performance on the examination paper for this module was excellent, and indicated that students had read widely outside the bare lecture material. Because numbers were small, no questionnaire was designed nor issued. Informal feedback was generally favourable. This module will be presented for the last time in 2007.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Heterocyclic Chemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The Heterocyclic class this year consisted of 16 students who all passed this topic. The topic was exceptionally well received by the students who responded to the QAS. Workload does not seem to be an issue, the assessment was well-liked and this culminated in the highest rating for this topic of any in the 3rd year set of topics (4.5/5).
In the comments section one student made a particularly good comment which was that the compendium exercise could have been done better if instruction on how to use library resources for information had been available. I have already commenced discussions with the library with a view to putting some library/database resource use training into the range of instruction that 3rd years receive. Currently I am planning for that library session(s) to be done through the laboratory program probably at the start of second semester.
Two students commented favourably on the use of non-exam based assessment. The use of the compendium exercise on named reactions continues to be a big success and allows for students with a weaker background in the area to score well before doing the exam. It will only be bigger and better next year.
Two students commented they wanted more tutorials. Some tutorials were held and these were offered on the basis that a minimum of 6 students turn up to a tutorial with material for discussion (of which there is no shortage). Tutorials were cancelled when only one student out of a class of 16 attended. Tutorials will be offered again next year still with the proviso that students commit to attending them.
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. Many of these external speakers are former La Trobe students. 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 3 lectures using a PowerPoint presentation in 2006, 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 (18) respondents rated the topic as good or very good. 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 4.1 ± 0.2. The student response to this module was quite enthusiastic, with favourable comments made regarding the lecturing, the lecture notes, the lecturers and the method of assessment. There were a couple of suggestions that the echem assignment be handed out earlier. Ok.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Instrumental Analysis
(Dr Conor Hogan)The level of student satisfaction with this topic in 2006 was again very high. The survey results indicated 95 % of students rated the topic as good or very good and 88 % 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. 84% of the 34 students sitting the exam passed (a similar rate to previous years). Comments made by students in the questionnaires were uniformly positive, many commenting that they found the material interesting and stimulating. Some respondents suggested that more mid semester revision questions would be helpful. I intend to add more of these.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Molecular Design
(Dr Bob Brownlee and Dr David Wilson)The overall rating for this course was 4.4 (second highest rating for Chemistry 3). This is an improvement from 2005, which is likely due to changes in the course since last year.
This course is delivered in workshop format and is assessed by weekly exercises and a final project. In 2006 there were a record number of students in the course, with the vast majority of students submitting all required assessment. We expect that enrolments are linked to the style, content and presentation of this course.
This year a significant attempt was made to improve the exercises both in terms of their relevance and the amount of work required. This has been well received by students. The majority of students appreciated the delivery mode and the fact that this course had no exams.
Summary of student comments
| Best | Needs improving |
| No exam | Homework a drag: real hard sometimes |
| Most interesting of all chemistry units | More summaries to confirm knowledge |
| Useful when looking for a job | Don't run class overtime... |
| Hands on approach, learn as you go | No project workload, longer lecture |
| Flexible in exercises | Feel as though course cover too much |
| Good as practical course | Get marks during semester |
| Work at own pace | Less material, less work each week |
| All good | Copies of software for home use |
| Style of class | |
| In depth knowledge of theor. calcs. |
Response
The hands-on workshop approach will continue to be employed as the most effective learning approach in this course.
Development and refinement of course topics and assessment exercises will further improve the learning outcomes of students in 2007 and beyond. The exercises are constructed to maximise learning with a minimum workload, which is considered appropriate for a subject with no exam component. The project is a vital part of this subject to reinforce understanding of the course content.
Subject to licensing requirements, all software used in this course has been provided to students. Licensed software cannot be distributed.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Secondary Metabolism
(Dr Andrew Hughes)This topic was not offered in 2005 and so comparison with a previous year is not warranted. Approximately 14 students responded to the survey from a class of 17. 94% of students passed the topic. The numerical scores in the survey were generally high to very high indicating a strong level of satisfaction with the topic. One theme that did emerge from the numerical questions was the perception there was a lot of work for this topic. The assessment was based on 3 short essay assignments. There was no exam. This was regarded as a good approach, particularly in the lecturer's view as students were given the opportunity to improve their submitted work through comments provided on the first and second essays.
There were few comments. Those students that did comment indicated they wanted more time for the assignments. This is not possible as the semester is only so long. One student suggested reducing the number of essays, while others wanted more assignments of lesser value. If the number of assignments was increased to 5, I believe students would say there were too many and they were worth too little to make a real effort. Accordingly, I will reduce the number of essays for next year to two. Other students commented the lead articles were getting old. It is true the lead articles are in need of review and I will endeavour to remove some of the topics that are not handled well and introduce some new ones.
Lastly, I have become aware from this and other topics that some students have not developed much skill at using the literature to find information. This is a very important skill for professional chemists. I am arranging with the library to conduct training in using the literature and resources in the Library for next year. That training will be provided through the laboratory program in second semester and so will be undertaken by all students in 3rd year ADB/SPB not just those doing Secondary Metabolism.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Structure and Energetics
(Dr John Christie and Dr Bob Brownlee)Student performance in this module was slightly better than in the two previous years, with 8 students scoring 70% or more. A relatively small number of student evaluations (11) all rated the module in the top two categories. There was only a single negative response to any of the questions -- one student felt that too much material had been covered, an opinion not shared by others. Suggestions that it might be appropriate to offer more tutorials, especially for the quantum chemistry section, have been noted.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Surface and Polymer Chemistry
(Dr Graeme Nyberg and Dr John Christie)The most favourable numerical responses were for workload manageable, assessment appropriate, and volume of work means you can comprehend it all. The least favourable were for aims clear, appropriate help, things explained well, and lectures well prepared. There were not enough responses last year to allow an analysis (and thus now any comparison).
With respect to the qualitative comments, the most common best thing was 'polymers', and for how improve it was 'do exam questions in class'.
Proposed changes: This component will be partly rearranged (Polymer) and partly discontinued (Surface) in 2007.