Slutrapport kursutvärdering, KFKN01

Basfakta

Sammanfattning av enkätsvar

På alla frågor utom den om närvaro kan poängen variera mellan -100 och +100, där -100 innebär att man "tar helt avstånd från påståendet" och +100 att man "instämmer helt i påståendet".

Närvaro vid undervisningen Andel av undervisningen Antal Andel 0-30 % 0 0 % 30-70 % 2 50 % 70-100 % 2 50 % Skalor & enskilda frågor Skala Poäng StdAvv God undervisning +38 81 Tydliga mål +34 77 Förståelseinriktad examination +94 9 Lämplig arbetsbelastning -31 62 Enskilda frågor Kursen känns angelägen för min utbildning +63 48 Överlag är jag nöjd med den här kursen +38 95

Fördelning av svar på fråga 26: "Överlag är jag nöjd med den här kursen"        Antal Andel Missnöjda (<0) 1 25 % Neutrala (0) 0 0 % Nöjda (>0) 3 75 % Har ej besvarat frågan 0 0 % Medelpoäng +38 Standardavvikelse (StdAvv) 95

Fördelning av svar på fråga 17: "Kursen känns angelägen för min utbildning"      Medelpoäng +63 Standardavvikelse (StdAvv) 48

Kommentarer

Studierådets kommentarer

Course representatives met with the course responsible to discuss feedback from both the internal and official CEQ. There were few responses on the LTH CEQ, maybe because the course responsibles had an internal CEQ as a quiz on Canvas. The class was encouraged to fill out the quiz after the final examination date so participation should have been rather high. Due to a technical issue on Canvas, only two responses were recorded in the internal CEQ.

Student comments in the official CEQ pointed to a heavy workload throughout the course, unclear grade weighting for assignments, a desire for more practical examples in NMR spectra interpretation, and a need for more detailed explanations when marks are given. From the representatives’ perspective, uploading more than one additional example could help students feel more prepared, although it may not be strictly necessary. A clearer grading process for the midterm was emphasized, with a suggestion to include an event for reviewing and commenting on results. The course was appreciated for its wide range of NMR topics and in-depth analysis, and the exercise sessions were found to be effective in facilitating learning and student discussions. However, more practical examples could improve these sessions further. It was also noted that the lab component was more demanding than reflected in the current grade distribution, and course coordinators agreed to consider adjusting the final grade formula to better reflect this. On the topic of lab reports, professors still prefer individual submissions, but encouraging group discussions was suggested. It should also be made clearer that students are welcome to ask for feedback during scheduled sessions, as written comments can be time-consuming to produce and may be misunderstood. Overall, lab time slots worked well, although a delay in releasing lab grades occurred because the lab responsibles forgot to input the lab results on Canvas. Lastly, we discussed how the level of coding knowledge required for the course was unexpected, but that this may not be an issue for future students who now have mandatory python courses.

Kurslärarens kommenterer

We obtained only 4 responses to the CEQ, but the 3 course representatives felt that their discussions with other students had given them a good understanding of other students’ views.
This year, the students achieved very good results: all students passed the course with grades 5 (5 students) or 4 (3 students). Overall, the students appreciate the course even though the workload is deemed high (as in previous years). Our intention to emphasize in-depth understanding and encourage discussions among students and between students and teachers is clearly appreciated.
We discussed several areas where the course can be improved:
1. The students recommended changing the weighting of the results on different course components towards the final grade. In particular, the lab reports should be given greater weight (e.g., 20% instead of 15%) while the intensifying task can be reduced (e.g., 25% instead of 30%). We teachers can see that this makes sense, because the lab practicals have evolved in the last year and are now more time consuming.
2. Improved feedback on grading of home assignments, lab reports, and midterm. Next year, we should make sure to communicate to the students that they are encouraged to follow-up and request feedback on their grades during the exercise sessions. In person communication is so much more efficient than written feedback, partly because it can often be misinterpreted and partly because it can naturally evolve into a deeper understanding of the material.
3. Several students request a greater number of exercise sessions dedicated to interpreting spectra. This year, we introduced for the first time practicals on processing and interpreting NMR spectra, so we interpret the request for more practicals along these lines as a positive response to these changes. We may increase the number of examples next year.
4. Some students felt that some course components (lab practicals and home assignments) required prior experience of programming that went beyond their current level. We provide python (Jupyter) notebooks or Matlab scripts as a means of lowering the threshold. It is not our intention that programming should be an obstacle to learning—quite the opposite. Next year, we should make sure to give a better introduction to the Jupyter notebooks during the lab session and also encourage students to use LLMs (e.g., ChatGPT) as an assistant when encountering programming limitations. LLMs can serve as very good learning assistants when used well.
5. At the meeting, we also discussed whether Lab reports could be submitted as a group task, similar to the Intensifying task. We teachers intend to keep the lab reports as individual tasks. Next year, we should make sure to inform students more precisely what parts of the lab reports can be worked on as a group and what parts should be individual.
Finally, we noted that we did not receive any complaints about crowding of task at the end of the course. This year we made an effort to schedule lab sessions earlier in the course, which apparently worked well.

CEQ-enkäten fylldes i