2007 Quality Assurance Feedback
Chemistry 3
CHE3ADA/SPA - Analytical Mass Spectrometry
(Dr John Traeger)This year the pass rate for a class of 37 students was 68%, which is significantly lower than the very good results of 81% for 2006 and 91% for 2005. Given that there has been no major change in either the course material or the format of the exam, it is difficult to provide a reason for such a disappointing outcome, although this year there was a change from a 11 am to a 9 am lecture time slot which may have had some negative effect.
Like previous years, 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 4.6 ± 0.5 for the question The lectures seem to have been well prepared. Some students felt that 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. However, it may be possible in 2008 to modify the course presentation to a less formal approach than is currently being used.
CHE31ADA/SPA - NMR & Spectroscopy
(Prof Robert Brownlee and Dr Graeme Nyberg)Overall rating = 3.6 ± 0.8
Of the numerical responses, the most favourable were for workload manageable, assessment requirements clear, more than a good memory, teaching quality high. The least favourable were for aims made clear, appropriate amount of help, things well explained, new ideas at understandable rate.
With respect to the individual comments, the most common praised the tutes, and criticised the lack of detailed hand-out notes.
Comment: "More notes" is a constant suggestion. It is our view that the web based notes should provide sufficient information on the subject, but are not a substitute for engaging with the lecturer, consulting textbooks and attempting the set problems. The low attendance at tutes where they are provided is also of concern.
The material in this unit will be modified in 2008.
CHE3ADA/SPA/MCC - Medicinal Chemistry
(Dr Belinda Abbott)Thirty-four candidates sat the examination for Medicinal Chemistry and results were very pleasing for three quarters of this group who achieved an average mark of 67%. Twenty students completed the QA survey, many made positive and constructive comments which were appreciated.
Students conveyed their particular enjoyment of aspects of the topic e.g. learning how drugs are made, the patent law process. Positive remarks were also made about the tutorials, practice exam, online questions, lecture notes, textbook, lecturer, well-prepared lectures, and the weblinks for further reading.
Suggestions included more tutorials (although one student said they didn't have enough time to attend), more assignments/worksheets and more variety of assessment. These requests can increase workload significantly and not necessarily increase understanding of the topic. Based on tutorial participation (with 15-18 students per session) and exam results, I felt that the recommended study program was appropriate. Students are always welcome to seek additional help as they need it. One student mentioned including related practical experiments, these are currently being developed for the laboratory program and will be introduced in due course.
Student responses appeared to also reflect that they were somewhat unsettled by the introduction of a new topic and there were criticisms related to this e.g. unsure about expectations, having to download notes each week. One student didn't wish to make additional notes to the downloaded material. A couple of students commented that they found it difficult to keep up with the delivery of the material. As this is a new topic, content and the way it is delivered is being evaluated throughout the semester and will continue to be refined with these comments in mind. One student complained that the textbook was rarely available in the library. While the first copy was usually on loan, a second copy was on 3hr Reserve throughout the semester. A request has been made for the library to obtain an additional copy for borrowing.
CHE3ADA/SPA - Polymer and Surface Chemistry
(Dr John Christie)This module arose from a rearrangement of two sections that had been in separate modules in previous years.
Student feedback indicated that it was generally well received. Positive comments were on well prepared lecture summaries available on the website, and on lectures that were well paced and easy to follow. There were also favorable comments on the industrial relevance of the material, though some felt that they would have liked more emphasis on current applications.
There were negative comments on the lack of tutorials, problem sets, and/or past examination papers. However, computer tutorial material that was available seems to have been little used. Past examination papers were available on both library and chemistry websites, and in the computer tutorials. Some students had difficulty finding them because of the rearrangement of modules. Very little of the material is based on "problems" in the usual sense.
In 2008 it is still not clear what the arrangements will be for this module. There will be at least a change of lecturer, and there may well also be another rearrangement of material.
CHE3ADA/SPA and CHE3EAA - Separation Science
(Dr Ian Potter)There were 25 student responses to the QAU survey and 47 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 student response data to some questions (response indicators of 1 = true none of the time, and 5 = true all of the time).
| The aims were made clear | 4.7 ± 0.4 |
| Things have been explained well in the lectures | 4.8 ± 0.4 |
| The workload for this topic was appropriate for good learning | 4.5 ± 0.6 |
| Amount and type of assessment is appropriate for this topic | 4.3 ± 0.7 |
| Level of support, help and advice is appropriate for this topic | 4.5 ± 0.6 |
| Things have been well explained in lectures | 4.8 ± 0.4 |
| You get an appropriate amount of help on ways of learning in this topic | 4.6 ± 0.6 |
| New ideas were introduced in lectures at a rate that allows you to understand them | 4.3 ± 0.8 |
| I have learned a lot in this topic | 4.4 ± 0.6 |
| Overall, the quality of teaching was high | 5.0 ± 0.2 |
| All things considered, how would you rate this topic | 4.7 ± 0.5 |
A number of areas of student concern as indicated in the QAU 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 useful techniques for research and professional analytical chemistry applications. The course content will again reviewed and updated to ensure that it represents current knowledge and applications in separation science.
- Tutorials were not well attended. I regularly saw the same 15 or so students and, I believe, by making the effort to attend tutorials they were better prepared for the end-of-semester exam. Students should make an effort to attend tutorials even if it means having to get to university at 9.00 am. They were not offered as regularly as I would have liked due to a number of unfortunate personal matters that occurred during the semester. Tutorials will continue to be offered on a regular basis. 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 colleagues or customers. 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 later 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 are supplied as an alternate method of encouraging learning of the topic material.
- Solutions to the worked problems are supplied and were well received by the students.
- Separation science experiments. Some students indicated that they wanted more separation science experiments in the laboratory program. 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 program. Unfortunately, this is not always possible with 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. The overall result did not improve significantly compared to 2006 and is less than what I consider acceptable. The average exam result for all students that attempted the exam was 62 ± 20% (61 ± 15% in 2006; 70 ± 13% in 2005). A point worth mentioning is that, although 47 students attempted the exam, I regularly saw only about 30 students in lectures. There are always valid reasons for not attending some lectures, but if students consistently miss lectures, the responsibility then falls on them to engage with the topic content to recover the lost learning experience. I believe some students missed many lectures and decided to attempt the exam without doing the necessary preparation. There were some excellent results by some individuals, with 10 students achieving a mark of 80% or better and 4 student attaining a mark of 95% or better. 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. Again, students had not prepared as well for the compulsory question as would be expected, especially; given the constant reminders, practice questions and tutorial revision. The average mark for all students was 20/30 (21/30 in 2006; 25/30 in 2005). Of the other questions of which students were able to choose, question 6 was the less popular, while, question 4 had the lowest mark. The average mark (and responses) for all individual questions were: Question 1 20/30 (47); Question 2 13/15 (45); Question 3 6.6/15 (40); Question 4 6/15 (45); Question 5 7.5/15 (32); Question 6 6.6/15 (24).
CHE31ADA/SPA - Synthesis
(Dr Andrew Hughes)There were 31 candidates for Synthesis this year and the class achieved a 68% pass rate with an average mark of 18/30. This is about the same as last year. The pass rate might have been higher if some of candidates that turned up to the exam had come to lectures and tutorials. Numerical responses to the survey questions were generally strong. Only a few comments were given by respondents.
More examples and basic principles and revising material from previous years were requested. My syllabus is full. We do not have time to go over material from previous years that students should know. Indeed, I provided advice at the start of semester about what lecture topics from previous years students should revise. Revision and study and knowledge of what has been taught in 1st and 2nd year is the students responsibility. Other students commented favourably on the links built into the program to previous year's studies.
Some were not so happy with the material Professor Marcuccio presented. Some students thought there was too much talk of business, profit and companies. My usual experience is that students want more examples of what is happening in the REAL WORLD. Was Prof. Marcuccio's material too real? His lectures are new material in the course and so there is not much back-up material like past exam papers. This situation will improve over the next few years.
Comment was made that lectures were too fast. I think we filled every lecture with material which should tell students there is not much time to spare. I repeat, if something is said in lectures and you don't understand, then put your hand up and ask a question. Very few students took this option during the semester. It is not really very fair to criticise when you have not tried to help yourself. Last year students complained about the essay on synthesis as being too much work for the topic and this was removed. This year students have requested more assignments ie more work. There is no consistent message coming from the class.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Electrochemistry and Materials Chemistry
(Dr Conor Hogan and Dr Bruce James)This was (jointly with Instrumental analysis) the highest rated 3rd year chemistry topic in 2007 (4.5 of 5). 95% of the 20 respondents rated the topic as good or very good. The quality of the lecturing was rated highly also with 4.5 out of 5. The comments provided by students suggest that they continue to find this topic very stimulating. Several comments suggested that there may have been some confusion about the timing and mode of assessment. Next year this will be clarified at the beginning of the course.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Heterocyclic Chemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The Heterocyclic class this year consisted of 21 students who all passed except for one student.. The topic was well received by the students who responded to the QAS. Workload does not seem to be an issue though one student felt it was high.
A couple of students wanted more problem sets. There is an extensive number of problems in the past exam papers. And these exam papers include answers. And the past exam papers formed the substance of the tutorials that were run and attended by about 20-30% of the class. Several students were very happy with the tutorial program and this will be run again in 2008 with student support. Several students also commented favourably on the use of the assignment worth 30% for the topic. This compendium assignment I believe is a valuable exercise and will be run again in 2008.
Given the very successful outcome this year, I think the topic is about right.
CHE32ADB/SPB - Instrumental Analysis
(Dr Conor Hogan)This was (jointly with electrochem/materials) the highest rated 3rd year chemistry topic in 2007 (4.5 of 5). All 23 respondents rated the topic as good or very good. The quality of the lecturing was also rated very highly with 4.6 out of 5. Comments made by students in the questionnaires were generally very positive. Some slight teething problems associated with the provision of notes on WebCT will be sorted out for next year.
CHE32ADB/SPB, BNF3MOL - Molecular Design
(Dr Robert Brownlee and Dr David Wilson)The overall rating for this unit was 4.2. This represents a slight drop from 2006. The large increase in the popularity of this unit with 34 students enrolled meant that the computers had to be shared and the teaching room was overcrowded. To address this, we have spent in excess $50,000 to purchase new computing facilities for 2008.
This unit is delivered in workshop format and is assessed by weekly exercises and a final project. In 2007 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 unit.
This year a significant attempt was made again 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 unit had no exams.
Summary of student comments
Many students liked the fact that the unit was based on weekly exercises with no final exam. There was much praise for the logical presentation of material and the structured progression of topics from basic to advanced. The students liked the workshop format.
There was more acceptance this year regarding the amount of work involved in the weekly exercises, although there were some comments that workload was too high. Almost every student commented that we needed more computers.
Response
The hands-on workshop approach will continue to be employed as the most effective learning approach in this unit.
Because this course is at the cutting edge of technology, it is continuously changed and improved each year. Development and refinement of unit topics and assessment exercises will further improve the learning outcomes of students in 2008 and beyond. The exercises are constructed to maximise learning with a minimum workload, which is considered appropriate for a subject with no exam component. Subject to licensing requirements, all software used in this unit has been provided to students. Licensed software cannot be distributed.
Due to the increase in popularity of this course over the last two years, we will be re-structuring the second component (Quantum Chemistry) to use a web-based interface for completing exercises. This will overcome several problems; (i) students will be able to complete the exercises outside of the Chemistry computer laboratory (i.e. wherever they have internet access), (ii) a fast compute server will carry out the calculations, thus reducing the time workload, and (iii) students will be able to access the software without purchasing software licenses.CHE32ADB/SPB - Secondary Metabolism
(Dr Andrew Hughes)11 students responded to the survey from a class of 22. 100% 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.
There were essentially no criticisms of the topic indicating the changes made for 2007 addressed the problems students indicated.
Several students commented favourably on the assessment based on two assignments. This will be done again in 2008.
CHE32ADB/SPB, BNF3MOL - Structure and Energetics
(Dr Robert Brownlee and Dr David Wilson)The overall rating for this unit was 4.2. The survey results (11 respondents) indicate that the level of satisfaction with this course is high, with 82% rating this course as good or very good, and 91% rating the quality of teaching as high all or most of the time. This was supported by the positive comments from students on the surveys.
A number of students commented favorably on how this subject builds on the Bonding course from Semester 1. Lecture notes were provided for Section B for the first time in 2007, which was well received by students.