The survey continues with similar efforts in previous semesters, and a total of 398 students submitted responses. Module Design and Workload used to be two distinct surveys, but with the newly added “Effects of Learning through Peer Discussions” data study, I’ve rolled some of what used to be in the Workload survey into the Module Design survey; the rest are in the data study.
This post is not just for you, but also a way for me to organize my own thinking. Feel free to send me further comments by email or come talk to me directly. Comparisons are always with runs of the module in the past under me (rather than any other instructor). I’ll start with the quantitatives (data taken as of 10:30AM 20 November)…
- About Yourself
| What motivated you to enroll in this module? | AY2017-18, Sem 1 | AY2018-19, Sem 1 | AY2019-20, Sem 1 |
| I am interested in or curious about philosophy (though not necessarily as a major or minor). | 277 | 317 | 320 |
| Needed it to clear Humanities basket, GE or UE requirements. | 189 | 271 | 212 |
| I heard good things about it from friends or read good reviews of it somewhere. | 169 | 175 | 105 |
| I intend to major in Philosophy. | 18 | 20 | 29 |
| I intend to minor in Philosophy. | 30 | 33 | |
| I intend to pursue Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). | 34 | 36 | |
| I couldn’t get something else that I would have preferred. | 11 | 9 | 7 |
| I have no idea. In fact, I thought it was a science module. | 6 | 5 | 9 |
| Others | 21 | 15 | 12 |
Note that many students indicated more than one reason. The top three reasons–interest (though not necessarily to major or minor), clearing modular requirements, and good reviews–are consistent from previous semesters. (Not entirely sure why the third one dropped so significantly–maybe the most recent past cohort felt they had a tough time?)
The “others” include
| AY2016-17, Sem 2 Score | AY2017-18, Sem 1 Score | AY2018-19, Sem 1 Score | AY2019-20, Sem 1 Score | |
| Prior to taking this module, I already have had some background exposure to philosophy as a subject of study, whether formally, or through my own reading. | 2.318 | 2.564 | 2.363 | |
| Prior to taking this module, I already have had some background exposure to philosophy as a subject of study in school. | 1.930 | |||
| Prior to taking this module, I already have had some background exposure to philosophy as a subject of study through my own reading. | 2.485 | |||
| Prior to taking this module, I already thought that I should try out philosophy as a subject of study in the university, at least as a small elective component of my time in NUS. | 3.314 | 3.340 | 3.284 | 3.357 |
Keep in mind that Likert Scores have 3.0 as “Neutral”, 5.0 as “Strongly Agree” and 1.0 as “Strongly Disagree”. The overall impression is also generally consistent with previous semesters. (I broke down the “prior exposure” question into two this time round.)
- The Topics
| “I was able to understand the topic” | AY2016-17, Sem 1 Score | AY2016-17, Sem 2 Score | AY2017-18, Sem 1 Score | AY2018-19, Sem 1 Score | AY2019-20, Sem 1 Score |
| Right and Wrong | 3.512 | 4.211 | 4.222 | 4.122 | 4.164 |
| Eating Factory-Farmed Meat | 3.650 | 4.192 | 4.161 | 4.117 | 4.101 |
| Rich and Poor | 3.812 | 4.184 | 4.133 | 4.036 | 4.113 |
| Political Authority | 3.532 | 3.921 | 3.940 | 3.772 | 3.836 |
| Free Will and Moral Responsibility | 3.181 | 3.750 | 3.496 | 3.408 | 3.710 |
| (Cosmological Argument) | 3.197 | 3.733 | 3.682 | 3.456 | |
| The Problem of Evil | 3.292 | 3.824 | 3.719 | 3.538 | 3.773 |
| Knowledge and its Discontents (Pyrrho) | 2.952 | ||||
| Knowledge and its Discontents (Zhuangzi) | 3.473 | 3.519 | 3.457 | 3.610 | |
| Scientific Realism | 3.579 | ||||
| Consciousness | 2.565 | 3.459 | 3.412 | 3.476 | 3.622 |
| The Simulation Argument | 3.545 | 3.405 | 3.434 | 3.232 | 3.489 |
| Average: | 3.324 | 3.815 | 3.772 | 3.661 | 3.800 |
Mostly consistent with previous round, with modest improvements of the topics in the second half compared to previous rounds.
| “I enjoyed the topic” | AY2016-17, Sem 1 Score | AY2016-17, Sem 2 Score | AY2017-18, Sem 1 Score | AY2018-19, Sem 1 Score | AY2019-20, Sem 1 Score |
| Right and Wrong | 3.777 | 4.229 | 4.175 | 4.081 | 4.152 |
| Eating Factory-Farmed Meat | 3.883 | 4.273 | 4.175 | 4.129 | 4.139 |
| Rich and Poor | 4.069 | 4.227 | 4.149 | 3.971 | 4.093 |
| Political Authority | 3.764 | 3.787 | 3.847 | 3.660 | 3.790 |
| Free Will and Moral Responsibility | 3.380 | 3.973 | 3.809 | 3.720 | 4.010 |
| (Cosmological Argument) | 3.556 | 3.851 | 3.851 | 3.716 | |
| The Problem of Evil | 3.843 | 3.944 | 3.912 | 3.818 | 3.982 |
| Knowledge and its Discontents (Pyrrho) | 3.186 | ||||
| Knowledge and its Discontents (Zhuangzi) | 3.676 | 3.609 | 3.602 | 3.677 | |
| Scientific Realism | 3.548 | ||||
| Consciousness | 3.088 | 3.603 | 3.718 | 3.694 | 3.821 |
| The Simulation Argument | 3.604 | 3.521 | 3.772 | 3.569 | 3.818 |
| Average: | 3.615 | 3.908 | 3.902 | 3.796 | 3.903 |
Rather noticeable improvements for topics in the second half. Students don’t really enjoy the Scientific Realism topic…
| “The quiz was challenging but not unreasonably so” | AY2016-17, Sem 2 Score | AY2017-18, Sem 1 Score | AS2018-19, Sem 1 Score | AY2019-20, Sem 1 Score | AY2019-20, Sem 1 Avg Quiz Scores upon 8 |
| Right and Wrong | 3.733 | 3.679 | 3.671 | 3.689 | 5.850 |
| Eating Factory-Farmed Meat | 3.730 | 3.651 | 3.680 | 3.624 | 5.220 |
| Rich and Poor | 3.649 | 3.662 | 3.607 | 3.649 | 6.150 |
| Political Authority | 3.608 | 3.605 | 3.462 | 3.598 | 5.490 |
| Free Will and Moral Responsibility | 3.603 | 3.401 | 3.077 | 3.561 | 5.820 |
| (Cosmological Argument) | 3.479 | 3.433 | 3.337 | ||
| The Problem of Evil | 3.616 | 3.488 | 3.321 | 3.553 | 6.000 |
| Knowledge and its Discontents (Zhuangzi) | 3.589 | 3.333 | 3.418 | 3.573 | 5.820 |
| Scientific Realism | 3.540 | 6.060 | |||
| Consciousness | 3.534 | 3.410 | 3.482 | 3.538 | 6.560 |
| The Simulation Argument | 3.493 | 3.407 | 3.398 | 3.530 | 6.850 |
| Average: | 3.603 | 3.507 | 3.445 | 3.586 |
Unlike some previous semesters, the survey returns are relatively even across topics. I have my own hypothesis about what’s happening there. The average quiz scores are also appended for comparison.
- The Special Project
| AY2016-17, Sem 2 Score | AY2017-18, Sem 1 Score | AY2018-19, Sem 1 Score | AY2019-20, Sem 1 Score | |
| The special project was a good component to include in the module | 3.718 | 3.710 | 3.730 | 3.660 |
| I enjoyed doing the special project | 3.746 | 3.771 | 3.856 | 3.773 |
| The instructions for the special project were adequate | 4.125 | 3.989 | 4.022 | 4.118 |
| The assessment system for the special project was fair | 3.746 | 3.856 | 3.858 | 3.947 |
| My team-mates put in their fair share of the work | 3.915 | 4.063 | 4.096 | 4.169 |
| Average: | 3.850 | 3.878 | 3.912 | 3.934 |
Overall, healthy, but not not spectacular. Small drop in returns for first two questions, and small increase for the last three questions.
- Subjective Component Effectiveness
Your average overall evaluation ratings for each component of the module, especially in relation to your learning in the module. First time this question was included.
| Lectures | 4.184 |
| Webcast | 4.350 |
| Tutorials | 4.131 |
| Weekly Quizzes | 4.207 |
| Special Project | 3.252 |
| Course Blog | 4.121 |
I really need a better way to communicate what I want students to get out of the special project component as it’s quite different from the point of the other components.
- Average time spent each week on different aspects of the coursework.
| Reading assigned text | Reviewing webcast | Working on quizzes | Course Blog | Any other revision | |
| Less than 1 hour | 46.60% | 26.20% | 8.06% | 61.71% | 50.88% |
| Between 1 to 2 hours | 34.51% | 41.06% | 30.23% | 25.94% | 32.49% |
| Between 2 to 3 hours | 14.36% | 26.45% | 34.51% | 9.32% | 11.59% |
| Between 3 to 4 hours | 3.78% | 5.29% | 16.62% | 2.02% | 3.27% |
| More than 4 hours | 0.76% | 1.01% | 10.58% | 1.01% | 1.76% |
The overall impression is that the load is roughly within the expected range for a 4MC module, though some students spend more, or less time. (The official stand in NUS is that “a 4-MC module would require 10 hours of work a week, including lectures, tutorials, laboratory sessions, assignments, and independent or group study”; source.) Fairly consistent with previous semesters.
- Time spent on the Special Project
| Less than 1 hour | Between 1 to 2 hours | Between 2 to 3 hours | Between 3 to 4 hours | More than 4 hours | |
| Formation | 33.00% | 37.03% | 18.89% | 7.30% | 3.78% |
| Production | 4.79% | 18.64% | 31.74% | 23.43% | 21.41% |
| All Else | 41.81% | 27.96% | 16.88% | 8.82% | 4.53% |
Setting aside the outliers, the bulk of the students are in the 4-8 hrs range. Considering that the Project is 3 quizzes worth of the grade, the workload seems commensurate.
- Grades weightage of each component
| Should be much higher | Should be slightly higher | About right | Should be slightly lower | Should be much lower | |
| Attendance (5%) | 9.07% | 10.58% | 78.09% | 0.50% | 1.76% |
| Participation (5%) | 3.78% | 8.31% | 74.56% | 8.06% | 5.29% |
| Quiz (36%; best 9 of 10) | 4.79% | 14.11% | 56.42% | 18.89% | 5.79% |
| Special Project (12%) | 8.56% | 24.94% | 51.64% | 11.34% | 3.53% |
The overall feeling seems to be that the weightage of each component is about right, with some preference that the quizzes could be slightly lower and the Special project be slightly higher. This is consistent with previous semesters. (Just to let you know that I have considered adjusting the weightages before, though the math hasn’t quite work out in a way that we like.
- What do you like best about the module?
- What things about the module could be done better, or maybe even replaced?
To be continued…
