It’s out! Some of you ex-students from GET1029 will recognize where the data came from–big thank you to everyone who contributed to the various surveys. It’s really cool when you can play with several years’ worth of data with thousands of points. And not least my collaborators Kiru and Zi Hui–couldn’t have done this without you!
You would have gotten your results by now. The student feedback has also been released to us. In the interest of transparency, I’ve left a copy of the Module Report and Teacher Report (for myself) in Luminus Files, if you want to see them. The overall impressions are consistent with previous semesters–as you can see in the chart below (click through to see).
Note that A/P Mike Pelczar and I normally take turns to run the module–I do Semester 1, he does Semester 2. Since some students have written in to inquire, you can help pass the word if a friend asks. Prof Pelczar’s version of the module will be largely similar but is not identical in topics and readings, and we don’t organize all aspects of the module in the same way. You will need to look at the Luminus page for details.
For the coming academic year’s Semester 1, however, I will (almost certainly) not be teaching GET1029, as I will be working on creating and implementing a large new module for the College of Humanities and Sciences.
All the best and see you around NUS! Don’t forget to watch our closing podcast,
I asked the tutors to send me some of their favorite “Group Discussion Summaries” (GDS). You will see them below. Keep in mind that some (but not all) of these go above and beyond what we were looking for. But before that, let me say something about the genesis and rationale for the component.
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)…
I’m in the process of collating your peer review for the Special Project. The overall impression reading the comments on group dynamics is that most students had a positive experience with the group–in some cases, even a very positive experience. I won’t have time to post extensive analysis of the qualitative comments but the attached wordcloud for Question 4 (“Any further general comments about your project group”) created using https://www.wordclouds.com/ gives you a sense of the overall situation. (Click on the graphics to see a larger version.)
Below are my preliminary analysis of the quantitative returns, dated as of evening of 11 November.
By design, the Special Project component of the module has a constrained significance when it comes to grade differentiation. This constraint is not fully captured by the fact that the Project is worth 12%, as opposed to 36% for the Quizzes and 40% for the Final Exams. While 12% is the equivalent of three quizzes, there are additional mechanisms to reduce the typical impact on overall grades.
The survey continues with similar efforts in previous semesters, which led to a number of changes to the module over time. Now with 2% set aside for doing surveys, some 419 students completed the Module Design Survey. This makes the results a lot more robust, but also much more time consuming to analyse. 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).
Total number of completed responses = 414. Breakdown of results below.
- Average time spent each week on different aspects of the coursework.
|Reading assigned text
|Working on quizzes
|Any other work
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.) Compared to previous runs of this module, students seem to have spent more time on the quizzes, and there is also higher variance.
Total number of completed responses = 354. Breakdown of results below. (You can see the equivalent survey for the last semester here.)
(Note: The analysis of the qualitative comments still on going.)