|
KFK032 Biofysikalisk kemi ht2 2016
Final report 2016-12-16
This year, 19 students completed the course. The students had the following backgrounds (numbers within parentheses refer to the average for the period 2010–2015): 11 (11) B program, 3 (4) K program, 3 (4) international exchange or masters students, and 2 (1) graduate students.
The study results in the course were somewhat better than in recent years, with an average grade of 4.16, compared to 3.93 in 2015, 3.83 in 2014, 3.95 in 2013 and 3.7 in 2012. This year, all 19 students passed the course.
17 students out of 19 (90%) completed the course evaluation during the last class meeting on Dec 14. This year we tried a less structured format for the course evaluation, with ratings of the lab exercises and two open questions (pros and cons) about the all aspects of the course.
The three practical lab exercises were generally considered helpful and interesting. Answers below are expressed in % with corresponding values for 2015, 2014 and 2013 in parentheses.
PyMol: 59 (55, 50, 72) good, 29 (27, 42, 28) OK, 12 (18, 8, 0) needs improvement
FCS: 94 (55, 55, 94) good, 6 (45, 30, 6) OK, 0 (0, 15, 0) needs improvement
NMR: 94 (73, 65, 71) good, 6 (27, 20, 23) OK, 0 (0, 15, 6) needs improvement
The FCS and NMR labs are clearly working well, with only one student (out of 17) not giving the highest rating. As in previous years, the assessment of the PDB/PyMol lab indicates some room for improvement. This year the ratings may have been affected by a technical issue: due to a recent OS upgrade, the PyMol software was not available on the computers and had to be reinstalled, causing about one hour delay for the first lab group. In general, however, the students feel that the labs are interesting and useful and they appreciate the small lab groups and the absence of lab reports.
The students’ responses to the two open questions, “What did you like about this course?” and “What should be improved in this course?” can be summarized as follows.
As in previous years, there is overwhelming support for the weekly homework assignments (15 out of 17 students commented explicitly on this), especially how they encouraged the students to work continuously during the course.
The continuous examination form, with a midterm exam and equal weight on homework assignments for the final grade, continuous to have broad support among the students. More than half of the students commented favorably on the midterm exam, but a few felt that the time was too short. Because of changes in the lecture hours this year, the midterm started 08:15 instead of 10:15 (as in previous years). As a consequence, the time available for the midterm was 20% shorter this year (105 versus 135 min). Although the exam contents were also reduced, the shorter time may have caused stress in some students.
More generally, it seems clear that the students appreciate the overall struture of the course and its emphasis on understanding rather than memorization.
The student presentations were generally of high quality this year and the student attendance was high. The students were particularly good at connecting the research papers to the course material. In contrast to previous years, there were no clearly negative comments on this aspect of the course. One student suggested that it would have been useful to discuss the paper with the teacher before presenting it. While this was possible, there was no time specifically set aside for this purpose.
The study visit at the Max IV synchrotron was widely appreciated, and two students suggested that it should be extended in time.
This year, some lectures were scheduled 8–10 instead of 10–12 in order to avoid clashes with whole-day lab exercises in the Enzyme Technology course. However, the midterm exam is scheduled in one of the two intensive lab weeks of that course, which a few students felt was a problem. There were also clashes with three lectures in the Organic Chemistry course.
On the basis of the students’ comments in the course evaluation and on the teachers' experiences during the course, we plan to implement the following changes in the 2017 edition of the course:
• Live@Lund will be used to make course material available for download.
• The course text will be updated and further developed.
• New and interesting homework assignments will be developed.
• The PDB/PyMol lab will be modified to structure the workflow better. The computers will be checked well in advance to ensure that the software is properly installed.
• Some of the research papers for student presentations will be replaced to reflect the current research frontier.
• The midterm will be scheduled 10:15 – 12:30 to reduce stress.
• Bus transport to Max IV to save time, and extend visit.
• Schedule midterm exam on a Monday and not close to assignment handin date.
• Discuss with teacher on KOKN05 Organic Chemistry to try to avoid lecture schedule clashes.
KFK032 Biofysikalisk kemi ht2 2016
Final report 2016-12-16
This year, 19 students completed the course. The students had the following backgrounds (numbers within parentheses refer to the average for the period 2010–2015): 11 (11) B program, 3 (4) K program, 3 (4) international exchange or masters students, and 2 (1) graduate students.
The study results in the course were somewhat better than in recent years, with an average grade of 4.16, compared to 3.93 in 2015, 3.83 in 2014, 3.95 in 2013 and 3.7 in 2012. This year, all 19 students passed the course.
17 students out of 19 (90%) completed the course evaluation during the last class meeting on Dec 14. This year we tried a less structured format for the course evaluation, with ratings of the lab exercises and two open questions (pros and cons) about the all aspects of the course.
The three practical lab exercises were generally considered helpful and interesting. Answers below are expressed in % with corresponding values for 2015, 2014 and 2013 in parentheses.
PyMol: 59 (55, 50, 72) good, 29 (27, 42, 28) OK, 12 (18, 8, 0) needs improvement
FCS: 94 (55, 55, 94) good, 6 (45, 30, 6) OK, 0 (0, 15, 0) needs improvement
NMR: 94 (73, 65, 71) good, 6 (27, 20, 23) OK, 0 (0, 15, 6) needs improvement
The FCS and NMR labs are clearly working well, with only one student (out of 17) not giving the highest rating. As in previous years, the assessment of the PDB/PyMol lab indicates some room for improvement. This year the ratings may have been affected by a technical issue: due to a recent OS upgrade, the PyMol software was not available on the computers and had to be reinstalled, causing about one hour delay for the first lab group. In general, however, the students feel that the labs are interesting and useful and they appreciate the small lab groups and the absence of lab reports.
The students’ responses to the two open questions, “What did you like about this course?” and “What should be improved in this course?” can be summarized as follows.
As in previous years, there is overwhelming support for the weekly homework assignments (15 out of 17 students commented explicitly on this), especially how they encouraged the students to work continuously during the course.
The continuous examination form, with a midterm exam and equal weight on homework assignments for the final grade, continuous to have broad support among the students. More than half of the students commented favorably on the midterm exam, but a few felt that the time was too short. Because of changes in the lecture hours this year, the midterm started 08:15 instead of 10:15 (as in previous years). As a consequence, the time available for the midterm was 20% shorter this year (105 versus 135 min). Although the exam contents were also reduced, the shorter time may have caused stress in some students.
More generally, it seems clear that the students appreciate the overall struture of the course and its emphasis on understanding rather than memorization.
The student presentations were generally of high quality this year and the student attendance was high. The students were particularly good at connecting the research papers to the course material. In contrast to previous years, there were no clearly negative comments on this aspect of the course. One student suggested that it would have been useful to discuss the paper with the teacher before presenting it. While this was possible, there was no time specifically set aside for this purpose.
The study visit at the Max IV synchrotron was widely appreciated, and two students suggested that it should be extended in time.
This year, some lectures were scheduled 8–10 instead of 10–12 in order to avoid clashes with whole-day lab exercises in the Enzyme Technology course. However, the midterm exam is scheduled in one of the two intensive lab weeks of that course, which a few students felt was a problem. There were also clashes with three lectures in the Organic Chemistry course.
On the basis of the students’ comments in the course evaluation and on the teachers' experiences during the course, we plan to implement the following changes in the 2017 edition of the course:
• Live@Lund will be used to make course material available for download.
• The course text will be updated and further developed.
• New and interesting homework assignments will be developed.
• The PDB/PyMol lab will be modified to structure the workflow better. The computers will be checked well in advance to ensure that the software is properly installed.
• Some of the research papers for student presentations will be replaced to reflect the current research frontier.
• The midterm will be scheduled 10:15 – 12:30 to reduce stress.
• Bus transport to Max IV to save time, and extend visit.
• Schedule midterm exam on a Monday and not close to assignment handin date.
• Discuss with teacher on KOKN05 Organic Chemistry to try to avoid lecture schedule clashes.
på sista föreläsning, 14 dec