Feedback from 2007

What were the best aspects of the unit? | What aspects of this unit are most in need of improvement?

This unit was taught for the first time in 2007, although much of the material is based upon an earlier unit CSE2302 Operating Systems. These are the comments from Clayton students.

What were the best aspects of the unit?

• Learning a new programming language
  It is refreshing to hear this view - I agree!
• Lab is easy and relaxing but, it's critical for learning
  Yes, that was the intention.
• The completion
  I presume that means that you learnt something? Excellent!
• Too hard
  I don't understand what you mean. Did you mean for this comment to be in the next section?
• The labs certainly taught me more than the lectures!
  That's a good thing. Lectures are not the best method of learning - practising things is much better. That's why we have labs.
• The learning objectives are fine; the unit just needs to address them better.
  OK, I'll work on that.

What aspects of this unit are most in need of improvement?

• Lecture slides were horribly vague. Unit needed a lot more planning; lectures were unorganised.
  That is slightly unfair, since I changed the slides to meet concern amongst the students that the original (Nutt) ones did not go far enough. I did think that giving students a choice of two sets would allow them to choose the ones they related to most. Seems like that is too taxing for many! The book and the slides are being changed for 2008.
• Lecture notes are not self explanatory, need more description on the graph or image to tell what's going on.
  See previous comment.
• The tutor and lab demonstrator should be chosen with more care.
  Hopefully, once more funding flows to the universities from the new federal government, we might be able to be more selective in our choice of tutors. What is it that they say in the business world? "If you pay peanuts, ..."
• Laboratories. To make them a hurdle requirement without being worth anything forces students to simply get the required marks.
  That is the general idea! Unfortunately, experience shows that students will not do any learning exercise if it is not worth marks. The remedy to this one is in your hands.
• Get new lecture notes. Current ones are not basic enough.
  Yes, and someone complained above that they were too basic. You cannot please all the people all of the time.
• Easier understand
  Achieved, I think, by more effort from the student. Again, remedy in your hands.
• More preparation on the part of the lecture would be nice.
  see previous comment. Teaching and Learning are two way streets, pardner.
• Lecture slides are a mess. We've been learning from two different sets of slides written by two different textbook publishers. These slides are far from adequate; please support the lecturer in developing his/her own slides next time!
  Nice to hear a student asking for more resources for the teacher. Yes, the slides were not the best - we are changing them for this year.
• Tutorial wording is a bit vague.
  So is your comment. In what way? In every tutorial, I asked if anyone had any questions. I presume you were not in my tutorial?
• Practical activities seems poorly structured. Too much waffle, and provided code is poorly written and commented.
  Too much waffle? Poorly commented? I'm hearing mixed messages here. The practical exercises were very carefully crafted, and the author has an teaching award for the design of the materials. I don't quite know where you are coming from on this one.
• Assessment criteria changed multiple times during the unit. The most significant example is that labs we have already completed - which were supposed to be a hurdle mark only - now contribute to our final mark. I find this unacceptable; it essentially means we were lied to about what work would be assessed.
  No, you were not lied to (and I take exception at your tone). If you read the assessment page, you will see that the lab hurdle was clearly identified from the outset. At the head of last year's assessment page is a very clear statement of exactly what was required. The labs did not contribute to the final mark, other than as a hurdle.
• Tutors need to be punctual and willing to teach. Lecture notes need to be formatted correctly. Multiple choice questions on (past exams) had disputable answers, so perhaps future exams should not have a multiple choice section. Assignments need to be returned quicker. There actually needs to be feedback on the assignments (as opposed to just a mark). Lab objectives need to be clearer.
  Let me break my response down to directly answer each question.
  1. I will reinforce the need for tutors to be punctual and enthusiastic!
  2. The lecture notes have been revised for 2008.
  3. The point about multiple choice questions is taken. I personally don't like them, so I am happy to remove them. However, I understand that many students do like them, so I will explore student feeling about them during the semester.
  4. All assignments submitted on time were returned within 2 weeks, as per university guidelines. If you did not get your assignment back within two weeks, it was because you submitted it late.
  5. Feedback was given using the Blackboard assignment submission and return mechanism. Did you read it?
  6. Every lab has its objectives clearly stated at the beginning of the lab (look at the web page if you don't believe me). Are you sure you were doing FIT2022?
• Organisation, lecture slides were terrible, much clearer requirements of the student in assignments, labs and exam.
  All of these issues have been answered above, with perhaps the exception of assignment requirements. But I struggle to see the point of this question. Looking at the assignments again, I quote from assignment 1 "You are to write a Python program to display a (background) image, and at the same time interact with the user. For this, you will need to use Python threads. You will need to visit the library page on Threads (or Threading) to see how to use them. Note that you may use either the low-level threads version in section 7.4, or the high-level version threading version found at section 7.5." (The description continues, given further detail about the "interaction", etc. Assignment 2 is similar.) What is not clear in that statement?

Let me say, if you have read this far, that a better analysis (and framed in a more positive way!) can be found in my personal reflections (self-evaluation) on the teaching of the unit in 2007.

Document History

This page maintained by John Hurst. Copyright Monash University Copyright Policy	48 accesses since 01 Feb 2012
Generated at 20120515:1754 from an XML file modified on 20100703:1628 Maintainer use only; not generally accessible: Local Server Work Server CSSE Server

87 accesses since 12 Jul 2010, HTML cache rendered at 20120517:0353