Evaluation Chemical Engineering B1 1st block 2017-2018
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Evaluation Chemical Engineering B1 1st block 2017-2018
OKC-ST, Quality assurance committee Scheikundige Technologie, April 2018
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Points of attention
3. Quantitative results
4. Common points
5. Evaluation per module part
Appendix 1 UT survey Module Chemie
1. Introduction
The Quality assurance committee (in Dutch ‘onderwijskwaliteitcommissie’, OKC-ST) 1 is responsible
for the evaluation of the bachelor modules.
This report is based on:
• Panel meeting with 9 students on 14 November 2017;
• UT web survey of the module;
• A lecturer panel meeting with students and lecturers on 15 January 2018;
• Quantitative results (pass rates and obtained study load).
The student panel meeting minutes were in Dutch. The document for the lecturer panel meeting was
made up in Dutch. Language in the lecturer panel meeting was English and the minutes of this meeting
were partly in Dutch, partly in English.
As the official language in the programme committee of Scheikundige Technologie/Chemical
Engineering is English since November 2017, this report has been written in English, in the course of
which Dutch source texts were translated.
1
Students: Noor van de Beek, Claudia Hovius, Evelien Kamphuis, Reinder Kersten, Fleur Sebek, Yordi Slotboom.
Chairman: Henk van den Hengel (Coordinator Quality Assurance TNW). Support: Eline Marsman (Quality Assurance
cluster Science & Technology.
2. Points of attention
Points of attention 2017/2018 Action Reaction 2
Common points
• None. • n/a • n/a
Results
• None. • n/a • n/a
Chemistry - theory
• None. • n/a • n/a
Chemistry - project
• None. • n/a • n/a
Math A + B1
• None. • n/a • n/a
Lab course (chemistry – practice)
• None. • n/a • n/a
Points of attention 2016/2017 Result
Common points
• None. • n/a
Results
• None. • n/a
Chemistry – theory
• Students think the Inorganic Chemistry book is • This year’s students share this opinion. It was not
unnecessary. clear that the inorganic book was unnecessary.
Chemistry - project
• Because of several uncertainties not every project • This year this issue did not occur.
group could start immediately with their project.
Math A + B1
• The students are not satisfied with the Math B1 • This year’s students think the lectures are good.
lectures.
• There was confusion among students about which • This year there was no confusion about the list of
list of grades was the correct one. grades.
Lab course (chemistry – practice)
• None. • N.v.t.
2
This column gives a concise description of the reaction of the lecturer. Details can be found in the report. ‘No reaction
on this point’ means that the lecturer hasn’t given a reaction on this point. ‘Reaction only possible after publication’
means that reaction is only possible after publication.
2
3. Quantitative results
3.1 Arrangement of the module ‘Grondslagen van de chemie’
The arrangement of the module is described in table 1.
Table 1 Arrangement of the module
Part Study load (EC) Hours
Chemistry – theory + project 8.5 238
Math A+B1 4 112
Lab course 1 (chemistry – practice) 2.5 70
Total 15 420
3.2 Student population
Table 2 gives an overview of the total enrolment. The enrolment consists of:
• First-time students in higher education who started on 1 September. They are called ‘regular’
students; this category is subdivided into students from the Netherlands and from Germany.
• Students who switched from another higher education programme to ST: ‘switchers’;
The evaluation focuses on the regular students: switchers are ignored.
Table 2 First-year enrolment
1 Sept. 2017 1 Sept. - 1 Oct. Oct. – Nov. 1 Dec. 2017
Regular – Netherlands 49 -1 -3 45
Regular - Germany 0 0 0 0
Regular - total 49 (100%) -1 -3 45 (92%)
switchers 1 0 0 1
Total 50 -1 -3 46
3.3 Results
Table 3 gives the results of the 45 regular students left on 1 December 2017.
Table 3 Results (regular first-year students per 1 December 2017)
Inside module Outside module
Module part EC Pass Fail % Pass Participation Pass Fail
Chemistry – theory + project 8.5 40 5 89% (90,85) 100% (100,100) - -
Math A + B1 4 32 13 71% (73,60) 100% (100,100) 5 1
Lab course 1 (chemistry – practice) 2.5 44 1 98% (98,92) 100% (100,100) - -
Module Chemistry 15 34 11 76% (80,72) 100% (100,100) 5 0
Percentage of students who have received a pass grade for the course inside the module (including possible resits inside
the module). Signal value ≥ 70%. xx means < signal value.
Percentage of the regular population who have received a grade for the part of the module. Signal value ≥ 95%. xx means
< signal value.
The percentages from 2016-2017 and 2015-2016 are between brackets.
A fail is defined as < 5.5.
Points of attention
• None.
3The average value of obtained study load (in EC) in the 1st module is shown in table 4.
Table 3 Obtained study load (of the regular population per 1 December 2017)
EC 2017/2018 2016/2017 2015/2016
1e module including resits outside the module 13.0 (87%) 13.8 (92%) 13.6 (91%)
Signal value ≥ 70%. xx means < signal value
Points of attention
• None.
3.4 Grades web surveys
The results of the UT survey can be found in appendix 1.
Table 5 Grades web survey
Module Average grade
UT module survey 7.7 (7.1;7.5)
Signal value ≥ 6.0 xx means below the signal value.
Grades from 2016/2017 and 2015/2016 between brackets.
Points of attention
• None.
Reaction: The chairman stresses that the mark of a 7.7 is the highest mark the module has ever received.
A lot of students passed the module. The chairman heard from the lecturers that students have worked
hard.
44. Common points
The UT conducts a web survey for every programme and every module. Results for this module can be
found in appendix 1.
Average grade UT survey: 7.7 Number of respondents: 25 Response: 50%
Further results are based on the panel meeting on 14 November 2017 with 9 first year students and the
lecturer panel meeting on 15 January 2018 with 4 students and most of the lecturers.
Student panel meeting and lecturer panel meeting
During the first lectures a lot of information was given. Only later it became clear to the students what
was meant with all this information.
There was no connection between the module parts. The project was not linked well to the chemistry
course (Chemie), although this differed per project subject. Math did also not connect with the other
courses.
Reaction: The chairman finds the missing link surprising. Students present at the lecturer panel meeting
did see a connection between the module subjects. Maybe this depended on the project topic you had.
There are no clear suggestions for improvement.
The study load was not evenly spread throughout the module. The load during the third block of
Chemistry was high. During block one and two the study load was well-spread. It must be noted that
the study load depended on the lab group as specific lab deadlines could coincide with other deadlines
and tests.
Reaction: According to the chairman this is a scheduling issue that the team needs to look at.
In the third block of Chemistry there was a tutorial in the Spiegel where the tables were not suitable to
make the exercises.
At first, the slides of Chemistry were only posted on the BMT Blackboard site. Later on, the lecturer
also posted it on the ST Blackboard site.
One student had a lot of overlap in his schedule, due to his transfer from one project group to another.
He had to solve most problems himself, because the involved lecturers had not been informed about
this change.
Points of attention last year
• None.
Points of attention
• None.
55. Evaluations per module part
Further results are based on the panel meeting on 14 November 2017 with 9 first year students and the
lecturer panel meeting on 15 January 2018 with 4 students and most of the lecturers.
5.1. Chemistry - theory
Student panel meeting and lecturer panel meeting
1. Common points
The lectures were of high level, but still good to follow. The first lecture was quite easy, but after that
the level went up quickly.
Reaction: No remarks.
2. Lecture
There were four lecturers. Lecturer A was enthusiastic and kept the attention of the students. Lecturer B
explained the topics very well, although some of the writings on the blackboard were not always
readable. Lecturer C had good lectures, but he treated his slides very fast. He solved this by tutoring
well during the tutorials. Lecturer D explained a lot of additional information and did not explained very
well. This made the lectures last longer than they should. Because of this not all of the core subjects
were taught.
Reaction: The chairman asks if students also gave this feedback to lecturer D. At the panel meeting it is
not clear who is meant by lecturer D. Lecturer C will skip some of the slides so he can slow down a bit.
Lecturer C thinks indeed he has too many slides. According to the module coordinator it is not yet clear
who will teach next year. The idea is to have one lecturer for the organic chemistry part next year,
instead of having two different lecturers.
3. Tutorial
The guidance of lecturers and tutorial assistants during the tutorials was sufficient. The students liked
the fact that they were asked how they wanted to set-up the tutorial. As a result the tutorial was
experienced as very useful and the students were good informed about what they could expect of the
tutorial.
Reaction: No remarks.
4. Study material
The slides were clear. The manual was sufficient. In the first block it was very clear what exercises
should be done. This is also the case for the blocks after that, although the information was slightly more
concise. Most of the students ordered the Organic Chemistry book and the Inorganic Chemistry book.
However, the Inorganic Chemistry book was considered unnecessary. The information in this book was
also entered in the manual. It was not clear to the students at the start of the year that the Inorganic
Chemistry book was not mandatory.
Reaction: Similar to previous years, there is again the comment about the Inorganic Chemistry book.
According to the lecturer, it was never said that the book was not obliged, as it was compulsory. Some
students like the book as an extra background information, it is a different way than the lecturer writes
it down. The lecturer will think about a new book, as also the programme will become English starting
next year. A new lecturer will be appointed for the inorganic part as the current lecturer will not teach
anymore next year. According to the students the book was quite expensive. Students prefer a smaller
book. The lecturer adds that it is also a book that can be used for parts of electrochemistry (module 4).
The lecturer has a cheaper and simpler book in mind for the first quartile.
65. Testing
There were three tests in total and it was clear what was expected from the students for these tests. There
was not sufficient time for the students to prepare for the test of the third block. Together with other
interfering deadlines (e.g. the project deadline) this caused that students experienced this test as more
difficult. The subjects that needed to be studied for all testes were clear and readily available. There was
enough time available for making the test. The retake of block one and two was comparable with the
original test. The retake of block three was of a good level. There was sufficient time for both retakes.
Reaction: The first lecture (of the third part) was 1.5 weeks before the test. Tests were all in the same
week. According to one student, there was no time at the end and it was difficult to plan what you needed
to do each day. The chairman mentions that the grades of the third test were much lower compared to
the first two tests. The chairman asks the reason for this. A student explains that when you score good
for the first two tests you don’t study hard for the third test as you can compensate between tests. Because
of other activities (project, practicum) students didn’t have enough time to prepare between lectures.
This should be taken into account for the schedule of next year.
Points of attention last year
• Students think the Inorganic Chemistry book is unnecessary.
Comparison to last year
This year’s students share this opinion. It was not clear that the inorganic book was unnecessary.
Points of attention
• None.
75.2. Chemistry - project
Student panel meeting and lecturer panel meeting
1. Common points
The subject of one of the project groups did not have a lot to do with chemistry (Energy Drinks). The
students think it does not fit the project very well. The practical assignment did not match this project
either.
Reaction: Students present at the meeting were not in the Energy Drinks group. According to the module
coordinator, this project topic was done before and there were no complaints before.
Reaction by email of the project coordinator after the meeting: “I think it is rather important to specify
that this project is actually one of those that has the highest scientific content in terms of chemistry.
Other projects like crystallization in chocolate or filtering of beer have a lower content in chemistry,
and these we can re-evaluate for next year.”
2. Lectures
The students think that the information skills lectures were not always useful. Most students point out
that it was more about English writing. They suggest a shorter lecture, with extra information in a
hand-out.
Reaction: The chairman asks if shorter lectures and hand-outs on information skills are possible. The
module coordinator explains that they depend on an external information specialist. The module
coordinator will contact the information specialist and try to change some aspects.
3. Guidance + deadlines
The guidance was different for each project group. The students think some tutors were more involved
than others. As a result some groups got more guidance and tutors had very different expectations.
Some tutors responded very slowly, and for instance took a long time to give feedback on concept
reports.
Because tutors made their own deadlines for their project group, the students experienced different
workloads during the module. However, the communication about these flexible deadlines was good.
Reaction: Students felt a big different in guidance and deadlines. There was a difference in amount of
energy students put in their project. Students didn’t feel this was fair. Some groups had to send in their
work many (7) times, as the tutor was not satisfied. One student mentions that the feedback given was
also inconsistent.
For one group the subject changed as the first subject was simple and they found a new subject
themselves of which they could present a lot. The amount of information presented differed between
groups. Also, the number of days students spend on experiments differed. One group had the problem
that the chemicals weren’t available at the start of their project. The module coordinator will try to
make improvements and give clearer instructions to the tutors.
Reaction by email of the project coordinator after the meeting: “This is actually the very essence of the
project. It is personalized and adjusted to the needs and competences of each group of students. The
group that had to send in their work seven times was a weak group in terms of writing, and we are very
grateful to the tutor who took care of them, as he was striving to improve their writing skills. There is
nothing we can do about this – the only alternative would be that we give the same project to everyone,
with strict guidelines about what to do, and then it’s not a project anymore, it’s a practicum.” and “I
would suggest to modify the sentence ‘the module coordinator will try to make improvements and give
clearer instructions to tutors’ into – The project coordinator insists that these differences are inherent
to different projects, and with a student-centered education that adapts to individual needs.”
4. Study material
The information in the study manual was not very extensive. However, enough additional information
was given in the presentation.
Reaction: No remarks.
85. Workshop + presentation
Students found the workshop about presenting informative.
Students did not know how the presentation and the project were graded. They would like to know
grading points beforehand. The timing of the grading was different per tutor. This leaded to some
frustration among students as regards the retakes and the possible compensation at the end of the module
for the project.
Reaction: Students did bad on the last chemistry test. The project was the last grade of the chemistry
part. So according to the students, you didn’t know if you needed to take the retake. The presentation
grades were given a week after the presentations. The chairman proposes that the grades of the
presentation are published sooner, so students have an idea about how their presentation went.
The chairman asks if an assessment form or assessment criteria were on Blackboard. According to the
module coordinator, in the learning goals there is a short description that says something about the
assessment criteria. The tutors use an assessment form. The chairman asks if the assessment forms can
be put on Blackboard. The module coordinator will ask the project coordinator if this is possible.
Reaction by email of the project coordinator after the meeting: “…according to the rules we have two
weeks to give marks. I can’t give the marks sooner than a week later. The assessment forms were on
Blackboard ….and they still are.”
Points of attention last year
• Because of several uncertainties not every project group could start immediately with their project.
Comparison to last year
This year this issue did not occur.
Points of attention
• None.
95.3. Math A + B1
Student panel meeting and lecturer panel meeting
1. Common points
The math case did not connect well with the theory during the lectures. The lecturers expected the
students to already have the knowledge from high school, which they did not have.
The grading of the case was not communicated well enough.
The lack of prior knowledge was solved by the lecturer by giving extra explanation.
In the second session of the case the lecturer had taken this into account, resulting in fewer problems.
Reaction: According to the chairman and lecturer, this year a lot of was spent on discussing about the
content of the case. It was changed what mathematics was taught in the first module (differential
equations wasn’t included). According to the students, it was a pretty good case for the second module,
not for the first module as students hadn’t learned already what they needed to know. The pass/fail
assessment felt stressful to students as students already felt that they passed the test but also needed to
pass the case, which may still cause them to fail this part. The chairman explains that the goal of the
case is to apply what you have learned in a chemical context. This year, it was not the application of
something you learned, as you didn’t learn about differential equations.
According to the lecturer, there were two sessions before the case. At the first session, one student was
confused by the slides. Students from the second session found the session better. Students didn’t know
before what to do and didn’t know about differential equations. A lecture before the case on differential
equations would be helpful. The kind of questions wasn’t what students expected from the case. Now,
students feel this case would be more suitable for the second module.
2. Lecture
Students liked the lecturers. The pace of the lectures was good.
Reaction: No remarks.
3. Tutorial
The guidance during the tutorials was good. There were additional exercises available during self-study
moments. Detailed solutions of the more difficult exercises were available in the book.
Reaction: No remarks.
4. Study material
Students liked the Math A reader. Students find it practical that the theory and the exercises were
combined in one reader.
For math B the calculus book was used. The study guide was clear. Moreover, everything was clearly
written in the slides. The slides were orderly, and sometimes even more clear than the book.
Reaction: No remarks.
5. Testing
The two regular tests were of good level. One question in the first test was misinterpreted by many
students (because a 0 , 5 was seen as ½), leading to wrong answers for several questions. This was not
taken into account in the grading.
There was a lot of practice material available. There was sufficient time for the tests and the retest.
Students experienced the retest as somewhat more difficult than the first test.
Reaction: According to the lecturer the 0 , 5 was between brackets and therefore formulated as an
interval of which students could have known it was not meant as a ½.
6. Other remarks
A student remarks that he would like to have some time between the last lecture (Monday) and the test
(on Friday) to let it sink in. The student would prefer to have a weekend to prepare for the test. This is
difficult to fit in the schedule. The lecturer explains that then the time between the test and retest will be
less, so less time to prepare. The chairman will look into this and discuss this with the other programmes
that take math as well.
10Points of attention last year
• The students are not satisfied with the Math B1 lectures.
• There was confusion among students about which list of grades was the correct one.
Comparison to last year
• This year’s students think the lectures are good.
• This year there was no confusion about the list of grades.
Points of attention
• None.
115.4. Lab course (chemistry – practice)
Student panel meeting and lecturer panel meeting
1. Common points
With several experiments prior knowledge about MATLAB was required. Because the lecture about
that MATLAB part was moved, several matters were not clear. This made it difficult to work out those
experiments.
Reaction: In the original planning the lecture came before the experiments. The chairman assumes this
will not happen next year. The reason why it was moved is not clear. There were 4 MATLAB lectures,
so there were some before the lab practice. Some skills could have been used if the lectures were all put
before the experiments.
2. Lab work
The guidance during the experiments was very good. There was sufficient attention for the students, as
well as enough working space.
Reaction: No remarks.
3. Study material
The students did not know what to prepare for the first experiment. They would rather see more
explanation up front about what is expected of them.
It is not clear which grade they got for this part. There is no clear overview of the grades (some of the
grades were e-mailed, other could be found on Blackboard).
Reaction: Students needed to prepare for the experiments but didn’t know to what extend they needed
to prepare. The lecturer explains that in the manual of both experiments there is an introductory part
where explicitly is stated what needs to be prepared. The lecturer is therefore a bit puzzled that there is
any doubt about what needed to be done. Maybe some students hadn’t seen the manual at the start of
the experiments. The lecturer mentions the existence of the manual. The lecturer can imagine that there
is a lot of information provided in the first weeks. Students think sometimes reminding students about
the presence of the manual may help, as at the start of the first module a lot of information is coming to
the students.
The grades of MATLAB were put in the Blackboard grade centre. The grades of the first experiments
and synthesis were distributed by e-mail. During the module you didn’t really know how you were doing.
Having all the grades in Blackboard would be nice. Students didn’t have a lab journal, they just had to
write in word documents which were provided by e-mail. The chairman explains that students see their
final module subject grades for the first time at the end of the module when they are registered in OSIRIS.
It is preferred to have all the grades in the grading centre. CANVAS will replace Blackboard, which
also has a grading centre. The chairman is willing to try to set-up the grading centre for this module.
4. MATLAB + error analysis
The explanation was very brief. Subsequently there was time for solving the exercises in couples. The
total available time was insufficient. Because the deadline was the same evening, it became very
difficult to meet the deadline.
The guidance was good.
Reaction: Students heard that the reason for this short deadline is that more time will give students the
opportunity to communicate about the assignments with each other. By having little time, students do
not really learn from doing the assignments. In the second module this is less of problem as you know
how the programme works. The first assignments were quite doable. The assignments became more
difficult over time. One student mentions the idea to spread the content from 5 to 6 lectures. One student
explains that the second MATLAB group could look at the assignment beforehand and prepare for the
assignment as it was already published for the first group. Maybe it is possible to put the assignments
earlier (a day before) online so also the first group would be able to prepare. This will be discussed
with the lecturer.
12Points of attention last year
• None.
Points of attention
• None.
13Appendix 1 UT survey module Chemie
1415
16
You can also read
