Issuu on Google+


!

Contents!

!

Page 3! Foreword by Educational Officer!

!

Page 4! Background Description!

!

Page 7! Introduction !

!

Page 7! Section 1 (Feedback on SOR1211, EPC1101, SCE4101)!

!

Page 9! Section 2 (Feedback on MAT3815)!

!

Page 10! Sponsors!

!

Page 16! Coming Up!

!

! ! ! !

Page 21! Conclusion!


Foreword

! ! !

!

The main aim of UESA is to promote the university life of engineering students by all possible means. As a result, the educational aspect of university life is of utmost importance. The UESA Complaint System enables UESA to receive valuable feedback from students, in order to assess the quality of the modules being oered. The compiled report of these feedback forms is then presented to the Board of Studies and is also viewable to all engineering students upon request. All feedback forms submitted are fully confidential and the identity of the students will not be disclosed.

!

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the students who submitted their feedback. This is vital information that will definitely help UESA improve the quality of university life.

! !

Andrew Spiteri

Educational OďŹƒcer

education@uesa-mt.com

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


Background Description

!

The UESA Complaint system was launched on Saturday, 18th January on the first day of semester 1 exams. The system was launched thanks to a Facebook event where this was used as a means to promote the system. The reason for choosing Facebook was to reach as much as students as possible. The actual complaint Form was found on UESA’s website (www.uesa-mt.com) and it was only accessible to UESA’s registered users. A screenshot of the following form and the questions asked can be found below :


! Introduction

!

The purpose of this report is to assess the complaint forms submitted by engineering students regarding difficulties encountered in particular modules throughout the first academic semester in 2013/2014.

! Section 1 : Feedback on Lecturers, Module and exam (SOR1211, EPC1101, SCE4101)

! SOR1211

Feedback on 3 lectures out of 6 was collected regarding this subject.

!

The 1st lecturer was always on time and any missed lectures were always replaced. Good notes were also provided. However, the lectures were seemingly spent rewriting these notes on the board, which students felt was an ineffective teaching method. Tutorial sheets were also given throughout the module, although students felt that these did not serve as a good preparation for the exam. In addition, lab sessions/assignments were not given throughout the module. To sum up, the students felt that the lecturer was not very well prepared for the module.

! !

The 2nd lecturer was punctual and students were notified of any cancelled lectures beforehand. This being said, there were some cancelled lectures which were not replaced. Well prepared lab sessions/assignments were given throughout the course, with the lecturer being present to answer any difficulties encountered.

!

The 3rd lecturer was always on time and notified students when lectures were cancelled. However, some cancelled lectures were not replaced. Notes were provided, however no lab sessions/assignments were given. Tutorial sheets and tutorial sessions were provided, with the lecturer being available to answer any difficulties.

!

All of which felt that the exam was not long enough. In addition, the exam contained questions which were not covered during the lecture or in any tutorials. Furthermore, it was felt that the content of the exam was much more difficult than of previous years, with the structure being significantly different. To sum up, all students felt that the exam was unfair and did not accurately reflect what was being done during lectures. 75% of the


students felt that not much was gained from the module and would not recommend it to fellow students.

! SCE4101

!

The lecturer has been reported to be rarely on time, with some cancelled lectures remaining uncompensated. Nevertheless, the lecturer provided notes, lab sessions/assignments and tutorial sheets/sessions; and was well prepared for the lab sessions and the subject overall. Despite this, it was felt that the tutorials did not offer much preparation towards the exam.

!

It was felt that the time allocated for the exam was sufficient, however the

content varied from what was given in the lecture and in the notes. To sum up, the module was found to be interesting and a better insight was gained from studying it.

! ! EPC1101

!

The students felt that the only problem with this module was the respective lecturer thus official forms were not filled. The main concerns were the difficulties encountered with the method of teaching of Dr. Ing Reiko Raute. These were summed up to :

!

• Talks facing the white board and not the class.

• Talks really fast making it impossible to understand him at times.

• Finds a difficulty in translating while explaining

• Finds a difficulty to explain notes during lectures (Notes are of another lecturer)

!

The problem having these complaints during 1st Year first semester resulted in students not understanding the basic building blocks required for such an important module. Therefore, students had to refer to other means of study to try and understand these basic concepts. (Example DC Network Analysis which leads to AC network analysis during Second Semester)

!

On a positive note however, a tutorial session was held were around 10 people attended and it went very well.

!! !! !! !! !!

In order to protect all lecturer's names only study unit codes will be given.


! Section 2 : Background Description

!

Following the Electrical Engineering board of studies on 19th February, 2014, the board decided that complaints regarding Mathematics for Engineers 3 (MAT3815) needed to be collected. The student representative on that board, Jurgen Seychell, agreed to collect the complaints from the students and compiled the following report.

! Introduction

!

The purpose of this report is to assess the complaint forms submitted by engineering students regarding diďŹƒculties encountered in Mathematics for Engineers 3.

! Number of students that filled the complaint : 21

! General Information

!

All of the students agreed that the lecturer was always on time and that they were informed regarding the cancellation of lectures, but missed lectures were never replaced at a later date. In addition, the lecturer did provide suitable notes during the lecture, as well as relevant tutorials sheets. Tutorial sessions were also held. As exams approached, lectures were dedicated to tutorials and past papers.

! What did students gain from this subject?

!

35% of the students said they earned a better understanding of double integrals, while successfully learning how to use triple integrals. The students coming from the electrical stream claimed that vector analysis was the most interesting topic as it encouraged their understanding in electromagnetic theory. 5 students admitted to have earned further knowledge in mathematics and other forms of mathematical computation. 1 student argued that he/she memorised everything by heart for the exam and has already forgotten everything.

! ! ! !!

In order to protect all lecturer's names only study unit codes will be given.


! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

SPECIAL

THANKS

GOES TO ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


Important Questions

!

How prepared was the lecturer for the subject?

!

Data accquired 1 SCALE (1-WORST, 5-BEST)

NUMBER OF STUDENTS

5

12

4

4

3

5

2

0

1

0

Column Chart 12

Pie Chart

5 4 3 2 1

12

9

24%

6

4

3

0

5

4

5

57% 19%

3

0

0

2

1

All the students agreed that the lecturer is knowledgable in his respective field, as he is capable of answering all kind of questions during the lesson, as well as during the tutorials. 3 students argued that some diďŹƒculties were not discussed well while the rest mentioned that the lecturer lacks teaching skills. Most of the students made emphases on the fact that the lecturer could have explained himself better. 2 students also stated that it was impossible to copy notes from the board while trying to understand what was being taught, whilst sitting in a class of around 60 students.


Do you consider the exam level to be considerably fair? Data accquired 2 SCALE (1-NOT FAIR, 5-FAIR)

NUMBER OF STUDENTS

5

0

4

2

3

6

2

8

1

5

! Column Chart 8

Pie Chart

6

6

24%

10%

5

4

29%

2

0

5 4 3 2 1

8

2

38%

0 5

!

4

3

2

1

! All of the students argued that the paper was quite diďŹƒcult, and was of a much higher level than expected. Although the paper reflected the examples and the tutorials, the exam questions themselves were of a much higher level. 3 students claimed that even the usual average-level questions were diďŹƒcult, causing them to waste a lot of time. 50% of the students agreed that more time should be given. Only 1 student admitted that the students were given enough time. Another significant complaint was that students were sometimes given parts of answers to past papers, or even a few general steps to solve a particular question, leaving the rest up to the student.


Do you consider the exam level to be considerably fair? Data accquired 2-1 SCALE (1-NOT FAIR, 5-FAIR) 5

0

4

2

3

6

2

8

1

5

!

Column Chart 8

Pie Chart

5 4 3 2 1

8

6

6

24%

10%

5

4

29%

2

0

NUMBER OF STUDENTS

2

38%

0 5

! !

4

3

2

1

!

All of the students argued that the paper was quite diďŹƒcult, and was of a much higher level than expected. Although the paper reflected the examples and the tutorials, the exam questions themselves were of a much higher level. 3 students claimed that even the usual average-level questions were diďŹƒcult, causing them to waste a lot of time. 50% of the students agreed that more time should be given. Only 1 student admitted that the students were given enough time. Another significant complaint was that students were sometimes given parts of answers to past papers, or even a few general steps to solve a particular question, leaving the rest up to the student.


Was the exam long enough? Data accquired 4 ANSWER

NUMBER OF STUDENTS

Yes

12

No

9

! ! Column Chart 12

12

9

9

6

3

0

Yes

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

No

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Pie Chart

Yes No

43% 57%


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Up

Next . . . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


!

Did tutorials serve as a good preparation for solving problems

and understanding the exam?

Data accquired 6 ANSWER

NUMBER OF STUDENTS

Yes

10

No

11

! Column Chart 11

11

11

10

10

10

9

Yes

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

No

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Pie Chart

52%

Yes No

48%


Were there any questions in the exam which were completely different to the tutorial? Data accquired 7 ANSWER

16

12

8

4

0

NUMBER OF STUDENTS

Yes

16

No

5

! ! Column Chart ! Pie Chart ! 16 ! ! ! 24% ! ! ! ! ! 5 76% ! ! ! ! Improvements as proposed by students

! Yes

No

The general comment pointed out by students is to have the tutorial sheets and the worked examples on equal levels as the exam paper. Thus, if the paper is kept at the same level, the tutorials should be made harder in order to prepare the student properly. The majority of the students felt that too much importance is given to this study unit. They claimed it was an intense unit with a large studying load. Students are not seeing the importance of such a challenging unit. One student from electrical engineering suggested that more electrical application should be introduced. Students feel that apart from opening a new area of mathematics and introducing new concepts, the study unit does not add up too much. 3 students suggested that it should be compensatable, or that the number of credits should be increased. Other students claimed that the unit should have less material, and that longer lectures should be allocated. Once again another electrical engineering student argued that the class was too big, and that the whole group should be divided into smaller groups.

Yes No


! Concluding remarks on MAT3815

!

As can be clearly seen from the above complaints, something has to be done to tackle this unit. A simple short term solution is to make it compensatable as to ease the load of the students. Another solution would be to divide the class into 2 groups. When it comes to a long term solution, one should reduce the level of the exam paper, making it level to the tutorial sheets. Alternatively, the tutorial sheets could be made as diďŹƒcult as the exam paper. One should also consider how capable the lecturer is of teaching such a unit. In addition to this the student must understand the importance of this unit, making it more interesting, and thus, more challenging.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !



publication-complaint-report_final