Department of Computer Science
Research Project Perparation
Dr. J. J. Bryson
Number of Students Assessed:
taken in light of last year's report
- Next year marking will be made more transparent by handing out
the marking sheet with the coursework, and by specifying that both
marks will be worth 50% of the grade. This means eliminating the
course marker as `moderator' to smooth discrepencies between
supervisors, but was seen as the only practical recourse by the
lecturer & the DoS. This
worked very well, there were no complaints.
- Feedback `too direct' --- to
some extent this is due to it being the first real feedback the
had received. More care will be taken. Again, no complaints this year.
- Students thought too research oriented. This belief is
considering that the majority of the examples were taken from
engineering dissertatiations. Next year the examples will include an
engineering proposal from this year's course that got near perfect
marks. Will continue trying to emphasize that good argument is about
writing and communication, not just science. Again, no compaints this year.
- With respect
to main goals, the handing out of the marking sheet should make the
importance of understanding these clearer. This worked too.
- With respect to attending
the seminars, the unit description has been changed so that students
will receive credit for attendance in an effort to increase it. Attendance was superb.
identified by students (e.g. from questionnaires, SSLC meeting
Students had no complaints this year, except that some of the material
was obvious if one previously had a research degree. Action: Students are encouraged to
be selective about which lectures they attend.
Issues identified by the external examiner
The marks were far too high this year, because it was too easy to get
marks by turning up to the seminars. Action: Seminar marks were
lowered from 20% to 10%. Marking has been changed so merely
participating gets only 66% credit.
Report (approx 100 words) (your view of for example: student
response to the course, quality of in-course work, appropriateness of
teaching methods, pace and content etc.)
The course went very well this year (the second year it was run.)
The experiment in marking was the main failure, which had to be
corrected by scaling, but the course objectives were well
achieved. The main problem with this course is getting people to
give their seminars, particularly people from electrical
engineering. There is also going to be an ongoing issue that some
people need (for example) 5 slides on how not to plagiarize, while
others find this deadly boring. I think in the case of this unit
only, it makes sense to teach to the bottom of the room.
There was a real problem with plagiarism this year. Action: many slides were added
on the issue.
to be taken as a cosequence of B, D or E (if, after reflection,
there is no resulting action, please indicate `none')
I'm afraid I have put the actions with the individual points they
addressed for clarity / lack of redundancy. See the above sections.