Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering
LTC05-P21
Agenda 3 – 9
2 June 2005
The use of 15-credit modules in undergraduate programmes
A review
The Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering has been piloting the extensive
use of 15-credit modules in undergraduate programmes in the 2004/2005 academic
year. This brief review describes the basis of the scheme, how it has been implemented
and gives the impressions or the staff and students involved in its operation.
A brief history
The use of 15-credit modules in undergraduate programmes has a long history. Several
were used in the first years after semesterisation and at least one department wished to
retain them permanently but they were effectively forced out within a few years. More
recently, however, it has become clear that a programme structure based predominantly
on 10-credits is not necessarily the best approach and larger modules have made a
return with 15 and 25 credit weightings being used on occasion. In addition, the
requirement to show overtly that Parts D of MEng programmes are at Level M has led to
the use of 15-credit taught postgraduate modules in undergraduate programmes.
The general use 15-credit modules in the Department of Electronic and Electrical
Engineering has its origins in the wish to remove first semester examinations. It has
been clear for many years that the enforced break in the year caused by first semester
examinations, which could be in excess of six weeks when preparation is included, has
had a seriously detrimental effect on the standard of project work. Once it became clear
that the University was not averse to programmes that did not require first semester
examinations ways of accomplishing this were investigated. This led to a review of the
structure of all undergraduate programmes in the Department.
Although 20, 30 and 40 credit weightings where used occasionally the 10-credit module
was totally dominant in all of the Department’s undergraduate programmes. It was clear
that the use of 10-credit modules had fragmented subject matter and that modules were
being included in programmes as make-weights when it would have been preferable to
increase core content. The review determined that more depth was needed in core
material. The most logical way – indeed the only way – to achieve this within the then
current University guidelines was to move towards 20-credit modules, however, this was
a step too far in that it reduced the range of subject matter excessively.
The problem then was essentially simple; 10-credit modules are too small and 20-credit
modules are too big – the 15-credit module was the obvious solution. If such modules
were to be used how should they be taught? The Departmental norm for 10-credit
modules is 33 taught hours delivered as 3-hours per week over 11 weeks, i.e. within one
semester. It follows that 20-credit modules are 66 taught hours delivered at 3-hours per
week over 22 weeks, i.e. over both semesters. It seemed logical that a 15-credit module
should contain 44 taught hours delivered as 2 hours per week over 22 weeks. Using this
model a basic year structure which included three 20-credit modules and four 15-credit
modules was proposed. This structure:
 Significantly reduces subject area fragmentation and the occurrence of make-weight
material.
 Allows sufficient range of material to assemble coherent taught programmes.
 Allows all teaching to extend over the whole year without requiring an excessive
number of examinations in the summer.
 Increases differentiation between programmes.
 Fits easily into any proposed year structure based on 30 weeks.
It is this structure that the Department has been piloting in Parts B for 2004/2005.
15-credit modules in operation
15-credit taught modules have been used in Parts A, B and D of Departmental
undergraduate programmes in 2004/2005; some Part B modules have been taken
optionally by Part C students, mainly from the Systems Engineering programmes. Those
in Parts D are postgraduate modules and are not the primary subject of this review.
Part A, which is common to all programmes, included two 15-credit modules; ELA001
Circuits and MAA303 Mathematics A, combined with five 10-credit and two 20-credit
modules. The Mathematics module MAA303 is delivered by Mathematical Sciences
specifically for Electronic and Electrical Engineering students. The department has always
been very supportive and agreed to extend the module from its original 10-credits to 15credits for 2004/2005.
In both 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 weeks 12 to 15 were used to complete Part A
laboratory work en bloc, however, in 2004/2005 Media Services were able to allow
continuous room bookings over those weeks and it is likely that in future teaching would
continue conventionally over the whole year.
Part B has seen the most significant changes with nine 15-credit modules being
delivered. These are; ELB002 Communications B, ELB003 Renewable Energy Sources B,
ELB004 Control System Design B, ELB005 Computer Networks B, ELB014 Software
Engineering B, ELB019 Computer Architecture B, ELB039 High Frequency
Communications B, ELB046 Electrical Power B and MMB140 Engineering Mechanics.
2
The Engineering Mechanics module MMB140 is delivered by the Wolfson School as a
service module, primarily for the Systems Engineering programmes although it is used
elsewhere. The School was supportive of the change and agreed to extend the module
from its original 10-credits to 15-credits.
These modules have been mixed with 20-credit modules delivered internally and by
Mathematical Sciences for all programmes and successfully integrated with 10-credit
modules delivered by IPTME, Human Sciences and Aeronautical and Automotive
Engineering for the Systems Engineering programmes.
In 2004/2005 weeks 12 to 15 were used in Part B for laboratory work, course work and
project work, however, since Media Services were able to allow continuous room
bookings over those weeks some staff continued to teach conventionally. It is likely that
in future teaching would continue conventionally over the whole year in all modules.
Non of the twelve1 undergraduate programmes offered by the Department has first
semester examinations in Parts A or B and no programme has more that six
examinations in the summer.
The objectives of these modifications, which where:
 To reduce the number of modules taken during the year and rationalise the
curriculum.
 To reduce the amount but increase the effectiveness of assessment.
 To increase the number of modules delivered over the whole year.
 To significantly reduce the number of examinations taken at the end of semester 1
or (preferably) eliminate them entirely.
have been entirely satisfied.
Staff impressions
When these modifications were originally proposed Departmental staff were generally
supportive and nothing that has occurred during the year has served to alter that
opinion.
The impression when teaching these modules is one of time, the pace is more relaxed,
material can be delivered more slowly, to much greater depth and more example and
tutorial classes can be included. The availability of weeks 12 to 15 for teaching has
meant that more material can be included but formal teaching can still be completed
1
This includes both Electronics and Computer Systems Engineering and Computer Systems Engineering
which will be rationalised into one programme, albeit in BEng and MEng versions, in the near future.
3
earlier and more time spent on revision and exam preparation. It is possible to reduce
the pressure on students to deliver first semester coursework by setting deadlines as late
as week 15. Additionally, it has been apparent that there is more flexibility in dealing
with unforeseen circumstances, such as staff illness, without the problems of having to
prepare for examinations at the end of the first semester. Some staff are of the opinion
that the stress on students towards exam time has been increased [Appendix A].
Students have also commented on this but there is no significant evidence that it is
necessarily any worse than under previous structures. Staff opinion is detailed in
Appendices A and B.
The occasion has not yet arisen where students are expected to assemble 120 credits
from combinations of 10, 15, 20 and 30 credit modules. However, since there has never
been a recorded incident of a student registering for 115 or 125 credits in the three years
that 15-credit postgraduate modules have been available overtly in Part D of MEng
undergraduate programs2, problems are not anticipated.
Although there is not enough data to draw any substantial conclusions there is no
evidence to suggest that the use of all-year teaching is having any detrimental effect on
the number of students who fail or transfer out of undergraduate programmes. The last
year that a fully semesterised structure was used in Part A was in 2002/2003 when 8 out
of 122 students failed or transferred out. In 2003/2004 there were no first semester
exams, in a year that included six 10-credit modules and three 20-credit modules, and 5
out of 120 students failed or transferred out. Figures are not yet available for 2004/2005.
Student impressions
Student opinion was canvassed. The current Part A, who have experience only of a
structure that has all 120-credits taught over the whole year, were asked by e-mail
which they would prefer; a fully semesterised structure based on 10-credit modules or
the planned structure, which has; three 10-credit modules (one in semester 1 and two in
semester 2), two 15-credit modules and three 20-credit modules (taught over the whole
year). Of the 124 students currently active in the year 53 responded with 48 preferring
the all-year structure and 5 the semesterised structure. The current Part B cohort is the
main subject of the pilot scheme and has been most affected this year by the
introduction of 15-credit modules, with more than half of the cohort following a
programme that is taught entirely over the whole year. The students were asked their
opinion and also encouraged to elaborate; the original e-mail and the more verbose
replies are given in Appendix C. Of the 109 students currently active in the year 39
2
This requires 120 credits to be assembled from 10, 15, 20 and 40 credit modules.
4
responded with 34 supporting all year teaching and 5 not supporting it. In both years
these distributions are believed to reflect the opinion of the whole group.
A single student from outside the Department (a finalist from Engineering Physics) chose
to undertake 15-credit modules as options. There is tacit agreement between the two
Departments that Physics students can take relevant Electronic and Electrical Engineering
modules without specifically asking permission This student appears not to have
consulted with the Department but clearly worked out that he would have to take two
modules. He was contacted by e-mail and asked if he had any problems incorporating the
modules into his program; other than a single timetable clash in semester 2 he has not.
The original e-mail and his reply is given in Appendix D.
The majority of the comments raise concerns about the length of time between covering
material in lectures and being examined on it, although it is recognised that all-year
teaching promotes understanding rather than surface learning. There is a general feeling
that where a module is examined there should be no coursework later than about week 8
of semester 2. There are some concerns that without the feedback given by first
semester examinations it is difficult to judge the level of effort required. All of the
comments would be applicable to any module taught over the whole year and only one
was specific to the 15-credit weighting [Student 24].
The general impression gained from talking to students is that those who first completed
a year without first semester examinations (Part A in 2003/2004) where very
enthusiastic that this structure should be continued into Part B. Students in Parts A and B
seem to have little interest in the weighting of individual modules as long as they can
undertake the relevant material. There is a general appreciation that longer modules give
them more time to assimilate material and to complete their coursework. There is
general approval of the reduction in the number of examinations and whilst there are
some doubts about taking six examinations in the summer they are mainly associated
with examinations being grouped close together, a problem that occurs under any
structure. Six examinations is not unusual at A-level and is possible under the old
system.
Conclusions
It can be concluded that the extensive use of 15-credit modules in undergraduate
programmes has been a success. They are popular with both staff and students, reducing
and spreading out workload for both groups whilst increasing significantly the time
available to core subject areas in each programme. It has been shown to be possible to
mix modules with a range of different weights from a range of different departments –
some of whom have expressed an interest in using 15-credit modules themselves - and
5
students have shown themselves able to deal with the different weightings. The use of
two modules by a student from outside the Department has indicated that the unusual
weighting does not, in itself, overly restrict optional module choice.
The objectives of the changes described are supported by The Code of practice for the
assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education - May 2000, which says,
in Section 6: Assessment of students;
... institutions will need to consider:
 the exercise of due economy in the number of assessment tasks, and the possible
advantages of combining the assessment of a number of cognate modules so as to
avoid assessment overload;
 ensuring students have adequate time to reflect on learning before being assessed.
It is believed that the use of modules larger than the conventional 10 credits helps to
avoid assessment overload and that the use of all-year teaching allows students to have
more time to reflect on learning before being assessed.
Operational concerns raised by staff and students relate to all-year teaching rather than
module weight; they support the following proposed structure of year-long modules:
 Year-long conventionally taught modules should be weighted at 15- or 20-credits.
 Where modules are taught in a known structure that does not include examinations
in semester 1, teaching should continue conventionally in weeks 12 to 15 of
semester 1.3
 Where modules are taught in a structure that could include examinations in
semester 1, conventional teaching should be suspended during weeks 12 to 15 of
semester 1. Those students not subject to examination will be expected to use the
time for coursework and project work.4
 15-credit modules should be taught for a nominal 44 hours at 2 hours per week. A
minimum of 40 hours would be typical when weeks 12 to 15 of semester 1 are not
used or a maximum of 48 hours where teaching is continuous; this covers weeks 1
to 15 of semester 1 and at most weeks 1 to 9 of semester 2.
 20-credit modules should be taught for a nominal 66 hours at 3 hours per week. A
minimum of 60 hours would be typical when weeks 12 to 15 of semester 1 are not
used or a maximum of 72 hours when teaching is continuous; this covers weeks 1
to 15 of semester 1 and at most weeks 1 to 9 of semester 2.
3
4
Normally in Parts A and B.
Normally in Parts C and D, where the choice of modules involving semester 1 examinations is optional.
6
 At least 20% of the assessment must be completed before week 15 of semester 1
and the results returned to students by week 3 of semester 2.
 In modules that are examined, no coursework deadlines should be set later than
week 7 of semester 2 and in all modules no coursework deadlines should be set
later than week 10 of semester 2.
 As a minimum weeks 10, 11 and 12 of semester 2, should be used for project
assessment, revision and examination preparation.
New Departmental procedures will be needed to formally monitor first semester results
and these will form part of the University requirement to monitor participation. The
current Departmental coursework monitoring system will be developed to support these
in-house procedures. It is possible that the LUSI (Loughborough University Student
Information) system being developed to replace the current CIS will also have suitable
facilities.
Keith Gregory, May 16th 2005
7
Appendix A
Staff were sent the following e-mail:
You have this year been involved in the delivery of 15-credit modules to our
undergraduate students timetabled for two hours per week over the whole year. I
would be grateful if you could let me have your impressions on the way in which
these modules have gone.
Their responses are listed below with clarifying comments.
Dr James Flint (ELB002 Communications B):
Generally better. The only people who have lost out are the lazy ones. This whole
year delivery allows those people to go the whole year without being found out, or
really flagging the problem. We tried to avoid this with Comms B using the interim
test. I still think this has worked for the vast majority with students having more
time to make cross module links. In Comms this has been particularly noticeable.
Another plus is that coursework scheduling seems much easier this year. The lack
of a gap in the middle means that there are more weeks for students to plan their
work, and it is much easier for us to set long deadlines.
Comment: All modules delivered over the whole year have a requirement that at least
20% of the assessment is completed before the end of semester 1. In future
the results of this assessment would be used in the monitoring of
participation.
Dr Simon Watson (ELB003 Renewable Energy Sources B):
My experience of the 15 credit module has been positive, but this has mainly been
down to the fact that there have been mainly Part C students and they are very
willing to interact in the lectures (which the Part B's are less willing to do). Having
the course over two semesters does mean that there is more time for the material
to 'soak in', but I guess the proof of the pudding will be how the exams are
received. Matt and I opted for two extra questions on the Part C exam paper where
we are looking for more depth of understanding so we will see...
Comment: Matt is Dr Matt Boreland, who shares the teaching of ELB003.
Prof Roger Goodall (ELB004 Control System Design B):
My impression is that the Control System Design module has gone very well, but of
course we need to wait for the end of year results. In fact CSD has (as a 10 credit
module) been running through two semesters in previous years, but the change to
8
15 credits have given the ability to add extra detail and to be more leisurely over
areas where the students have traditionally struggled. Overall I feel that the 15
credit pattern with 2 lectures per week is a "more natural" size, certainly for Control
where getting a sufficient grounding in the basic principle is important for EEE
students.
Dr Roger Dixon (ELB004 Control System Design B):
The ELB004 module seems to have worked really well this year. The extra credits
(and time) have allowed us to include some case studies and lab based design
experiments. In my opinion, these have significantly improved the link between the
theory and the real-world application of modelling and control design.
Comment: ELB004 had been run over both semesters in previous years, timetabled as
one hour per week in the first semester and two hours per week in the
second. It had been paired in the timetables with Signals and Systems B, a
module that has now been deleted.
Dr Christos Grecos (ELB014 Software Engineering B):
My impression is that they [15-credit modules] have gone OK in terms of what they
deliver, with obviously room for improvement. Three comments from me in terms
of their effect on other modules:
Firstly, that they seem to affect adversely year long project based modules, such as
the one that James Flint is delivering for part B. The reason is obviously that
students go according to credit numbers in terms of second year modules (maybe
not enough credits for this project) and its easier to hide in a group project. Myself,
Michael Kong and Simon Pomeroy had students who in fact admitted openly that
the part B project was in fact their last priority! My impression is and I also think its
Michael's and Simon's that the students have to demonstrate their project pretty
close to exam time and as usual they leave things to the last minute. Some of them
have significant pieces of coursework to hand in (as in Simon's Pomeroy's part in
my module)+revise for exams in other modules they take (2nd term and 15 credits
for both terms).This may account for their low priority for this module since the
percentage of credits they get from this module is small in comparison to the rest
of their modules. Maybe an increase in credit weighting of this module can solve the
problem of their low priorities.
Secondly, if I am right on the first comment and we have 15 credit modules in the
final year, they can affect adversely on the final year projects too. A remedy to this
may be to increase the weight of the specialist examiners contribution. I definitely
9
agree that there are generous time allocations for project work in full year project
based modules. However, assuming that students leave things for the last minute
and given that the assessment of initial stages of a project are just a report with
relatively low weighting in the final grade, makes them running to cover up for
project deficiencies close to term 2 exams. A greater percentage of the grade from
specialised examiners may convince them that they better be serious about project
work for the whole year rather than last minute. Another alternative is of course reweighting of the grading over two terms. In project modules with significant credit
weighting, you will not see that they become low priorities for the students,
however the chances of seeing something passable (as opposed to good) increase
in my opinion if assessments/demos are close to exam times.
Thirdly, I think that 15 credit modules are a good idea mostly when there is a
continuation on a subject area (say electronics A and electronics B). Any attempt to
actually dilute a 1 term module to 2 terms may not be that productive. I definitely
agree regarding the value of 15 credit modules both for students and staff. This
works well if there is a continuity in the subject area (for example in my second
year soft eng. module, design and implementation are a natural continuation of
each other and there is enough material for 2 terms). If we tried to have a 2 term
design module and a 2 term implementation module, there would be a case of
diluting material since I do not believe that design or implementation by
themselves comprise a good 15 credit module. In my opinion, the internal examiner
is the only one that can tell you if it is really a 1 or 2 term module. From my
observations, modules with advanced concepts (such as part D) or well planned
introductory modules are ideal candidates for 15 credits, while for the rest of the
modules it really depends.
Comment: Dr Grecos’ well considered comments indicate that students are under stress
toward exam time and he suggests that it may be worse with all-year
teaching. Students always were under stress towards exam time and are
commonly required to complete project assessments in Week 12 of semester
2, i.e. very close to the start of exams. The possibility, made available as a
direct result of all-year teaching, of moving the assessment away from exam
time must be seriously considered. There is no evidence that modules have
been “diluted”; the increase in core material and reduction in make weight
material has effectively produced a concentration. Dr Grecos also expresses
concerns about the dilution of modules. This is unlikely to occur. Modules
that cover the subject matter so completely that there is nothing more that
can be added are rare if not unknown in undergraduate programmes.
10
Dr David Mulvaney (ELB019 Computer Architecture B):
First possibility. Year-long modules compared with semester-long ones. In yearlong modules, the coursework can be much better integrated with the teaching
material. Semester-long modules squeeze coursework into just a few weeks. This
happens as a number of weeks are needed to get enough material across to make
it worthwhile students starting coursework and they then only have 3 or 4 weeks to
complete this before the week 11 hand-in. Teaching over the year means we can
still do a first piece of coursework in semester 1, but then set a fairly substantial
piece of coursework near the start of semester 2 for completion over a good
number of weeks. I didn't really realize I can do this until part way through this
year, but I'll seriously consider increasing the coursework element when I redo the
spec for next year.
Second possibility. 15-credit modules as opposed to 10-credit ones. You can teach
50% more material.
Mr Rob Seager (ELB039 High Frequency Communications B):
I am a convert (revert?). I do think they go well. Not being able to teach part C in
the 1st semester exam period is a slight glitch, but I think we have done the right
thing.
Comment: Some of the Part B modules delivered in 2004/2005 were taken optionally by
Part C students (mostly from Systems Engineering). Because Part C students
were taking first semester examinations it was necessary to modify the
teaching in weeks 12 to 15. In future this would not be done.
Mr Gordon Kettleborough (ELB046 Electrical Power B):
Brilliant!
Comment: What more can be said?
Dr David Pidcock (Mathematical Sciences – MAA303 Mathematics A):
As far as I can tell from the student response to questionnaires, they appear to be
mainly positive about the course. The timing has gone well and I am now in a
position to use the remaining three weeks to review key aspects of the core
content.
I believe you have attendance figures, of the order of 71% in Semester 1 and 53%
in Semester 2, and also the coursework marks from Semester 1, which indicate
around 8 of 128 registered students are not attempting coursework tests.
11
Regarding tutorials, I would suggest that perhaps once every 3 or 4 weeks a single
slot is timetabled with the lecturer for the purpose of giving extra help/examples to
students struggling with recent work. I am not sure if the regular provision within
the MEC has been used effectively. Though from the feedback forms 8 students
commented on how useful the centre had been for them.
From my experience, in mab303, tutorial provision it is not well used – I seldom
have more than 20 turn up- and consequently fewer (opt in) tutorials, but with the
lecturer, might be useful.
Since this is my first year teaching this particular course I do not feel able to make
comparisons with earlier years.
Comment: Dr Pidcock took over the teaching of MAA303 this year when it was already
weighted at 15-credits, however, it seems that there have been no problems
that can be attributed to the modules weight. The levels of attendance in the
Mathematics Learning Support Centre are virtually the same as last year.
Prof Vadim Silberschmidt (Wolfson School – MMB140 Engineering Mechanics):
My opinion is that this transformation benefited our module MMB140. The module
consists of two parts: (i) Statics and Mechanics of Materials and (b) Dynamics that
are delivered by two lecturers (one for each part). The shift allowed us to dedicate
one semester to each part (including respective tutorials and parts of the
coursework). The increased number of contact hours was mainly used to increase
analysis of worked problems that students can have in their homework, coursework
and exams.
More time is now available for students to prepare to tutorials. There were more
requests for individual consultations. As a result, students demonstrated strong
performance (Ave 66.8%) in the 1st part of their coursework that is now more
challenging than in the previous year.
I still have some concerns about exams due to the increased time interval between
the end of the 1st part and the exam - but they could be answered only in June.
Comment: The possible problems with examinations is recognised and several possible
techniques for ameliorating the problem are under consideration.
12
Appendix B
Mrs Julie Marouf, the Department Administrator, who has overall responsibility for the
production of timetables and room bookings, was sent the following e-mail:
You are well aware that we have this year been running modules weighted at 15credits and timetabled for two hours per week over the whole year. I would be
grateful if you could let me have your impressions on the way in which the modules
have worked in operation from your point of view.
Her response was:
The 15 credit weighted modules have entailed a lot of work on my part to
implement, especially in timetabling, but in my opinion has been a worthwhile
exercise. The effects I have observed are:
Timetabling in the future will be easier, using predominantly the same timetable in
Semester 2 as in Semester 1 where room bookings and operational issues allow,
there are also less timetable 'clashes' of optional modules.
The increased volume in exam paper production in Semester 2 has caused no
problems, and the experience this year of late papers etc has been no worse than
in previous papers, and may even be slightly better. There is the potential for more
timely exam paper production in future years as the certainty over how much of the
curriculum can be covered etc is increased.
In the past, when academic staff have been unexpectedly ill for long periods this
has had a profound effect on student anxiety over assessment, curriculum coverage
etc. Where there have been such staff illnesses this year, this anxiety has not been
apparent.
The number of students who, at the beginning of the academic year, were
registered for more than/ less than 120 credits was significantly reduced this year.
This may, in part, be due to the reduced number of options available in Part B this
year but signifies that the availability of 15 credit modules does not cause problems
within the student body of being able to put together a 120 credit weight Part. This
is further reinforced by the evidence of Part D students over the past few years,
who have had available to them PGT modules, weighted 15, as optional choice.
These they have successfully combined with 10, 20 and 40 credit weighted modules
with little coaching other than the advice given to them in the module option choice
pack.
The introduction of 15 credit weighted modules has had no significant detrimental
effect on administrative support staff workload re coursework hand-in, exam
13
production etc. On the contrary, some tasks have been made more effective and
efficient, for example the taking of student feedback which has moved significantly
to Semester 2 and can now be spread over two weeks. As feedback is taken much
later in the module, the feedback is less likely to be skewed as the student
experience becomes more long term.
The lack of Semester 1 exams has raised one issue, in their acting as a flag for
non-participating students. However this can be overcome in future with more
close monitoring of coursework hand-in logs and reinforcing the use of Personal
Tutors in assessment, especially in Part A. The reduction in S1 exam production
will free up support staff time to facilitate this.
14
Appendix C
All Part B undergraduate students were sent the following e-mail:
You will all no doubt be aware that we are in process of restructuring the academic
year. We are now at the last stage of this process and I need to formally get your
opinion on what we have done so far.
You have now nearly completed a year that has a lot of its teaching over the whole
year instead of in semesters, the structure including modules that are weighted at
15-credits and timetabled for 2 hours per week. Some of you will have done the
whole year this way and some of you may have experience of the previous
structure where most modules were delivered entirely in a single semester.
Could you answer the simple question;
Would you prefer to be taught in;
(a) modules that are complete in one semester (commonly 5 taught modules per
semester)
or
(b) modules that run over the whole year (commonly 6 taught modules in the year)
If you would like to expand on this I would be interested to see any comments on
how the year has gone from your point of view.
Some students simply replied with a letter – (a) or (b) – or a single sentence indicating
their preferred option, some were more verbose. Their additional comments are listed
below anonymously with clarifying comments where appropriate.
Student 1
I would prefer to be taught the modules over the entire year.
However during the January exam period this year we had pretty much nothing to
do, and as much as I like my free time, it felt like time was being wasted. Systems
Engineers only had Electrical Power lectures to attend as the other modules did not
lecture over this time.
Comment: Some of the Part B modules delivered in 2004/2005 were taken by Part C
students (mostly from Systems Engineering). Because Part C students were
taking first semester examinations it was necessary to modify the teaching in
weeks 12 to 15. In future this would not be done. Part B students were
instructed to concentrate on completing coursework and their project work;
no one had “nothing to do”.
15
Student 2
I definitely think the structure this year is better, where the modules span over 1
year.
Student 3
I enjoy the current structure, so I will go with (b). I like the idea of the 15 credit
modules (thus avoiding the exams at Christmas and allowing for extra lecturing
weeks) but I would like some more flexibility with module choice. As a computer
systems engineer I would like a few modules pulled in from Computer Science like
the C++/Computer Graphics and Java.
Thanks for listening
Student 4
In some cases especially 100% coursework they should be taught over the whole
year. However some modules which run over the whole year and are in exam
format, means there is a hell of a lot to remember, especially the maths modules.
So what I'm saying is that both have their merits. However if with yearly taught
modules it means less exams overall I’d prefer that.
Student 5
In response to your email concerning the academic year, I have a split preference
and would need to know more on the lay out of the year. Would having exams in
the winter mean less exams in the summer? Also, the modules studied in semester
one, will they continue through the whole year having a final exam in the summer
as well as having one in the winter? Furthermore, if the year got split into two parts
where exams were taken in the winter, would the modules in semester one be
different to the modules in semester two, where there was no continuation?
I personally would prefer to have exams in the winter if this meant less exams in
the summer. Also you would be examined on topics which are fresh in your head.
However, if there were to be the same exam load in the summer, I would obviously
object to winter exams.
Student 6
I would be in favour of option (b) with modules run over the whole year. It
eliminates the pressure of January exams.
16
Student 7
I would prefer:
(b) modules that run over the whole year (commonly 6 taught modules in the year)
Having spoken to students in later years in the department who have worked under
the per-semester module system, it would seem that the mid-year exams in
January are an unwelcome interruption to the middle of the year and that mid-year
exams make it more difficult to complete project work in a logical, continuous way.
My personal experience is that it is a lot easier to absorb information and develop
in-depth understanding of the different subjects when modules run over the course
of an entire year. Single semester modules don't seem to leave enough room for
students to gradually build knowledge of a subject.
Student 8
I believe that in general I prefer to be taught the 15 credit modules over the whole
year. So, I would vote for (b).
However, in one case - Engineering Mechanics, where we were taught mechanics in
1st semester and then Dynamics in the second. I would have preferred to have
done the mechanics exam in January rather than summer. I feel this because
unlike my other modules these two topics don't closely inter-relate with each other.
So, getting mechanics out of the way in January would have been an advantage
(and less stuff to revise now!)
Also, I would like to point out that my course (Elec and Elec) has 6 exams. I feel I
do not have sufficient time to revise for them all as I have 3 or 4 courseworks and
a project to do beforehand. It would have been better if all the modules followed
Electrical Power's example and got the coursework done and dusted by the end of
April. This would have left more time for solely revision - and hence ease the whole
stressful period.
Student 9
I would prefer to be taught in modules that are spread over the whole year;
although they are trickier to revise for as you are forced to recall information from
the first semester this probably means you remember the material better after the
exam, perhaps gaining a fuller knowledge of the subject rather than just revising to
pass the exam and then forget about it.
17
Student 10
I prefer modules to run throughout the whole year as I feel this allows time to
cover the subjects in greater depth, I find this much better than having the
possibility of many subjects but only skimming the surface of each one.
Student 11
I very much like the idea of 15 credit modules. I also like the idea of being taught
through the year and having no exams at Christmas time but for it to happen I
think Labs should be done in the time when everybody else has exams and most
coursework needs to be out the way by Easter. At the moment most of the people
in the year haven't even had a chance to revise yet. But yeah 15 credit modules are
the way to go.
Student 12
Many seem adverse to modules that are taught in semester blocks. I think that this
could be due to exams in the new year period. Personally I like logging on to my
modules in the second semester and seeing solid marks already there from
semester 1. Although during the summer time we (systems engineers) do not have
many more exams than any other programme, there is a lot more material to
revise.
However, I understand that means the writing of more exam papers and that if you
fall behind the schedule in a single semester, it is very hard to make up for it.
Student 13
I like the system in which modules are taught over the whole year. Although I
think that it would be helpful to have more assessment over the whole year in
these modules as it is hard to know how you are coping with them until you have
some form of exam/assessment- perhaps like the end of section tests we do in
maths?
I also liked the way elec modules like electrical power carried on through out the
exam period after Easter leaving more time at the end of the year for revision!
Student 14
My opinion is for option (b) modules that run over the whole year.
The main reason is because I feel that it is quite easy to learn the module over a
semester, take the exam, then forget it completely. If a module is run over the
year it has time to sink in and there is more time outside of lectures to do tutorials.
18
If there is only going to be two hours of lectures a week however it might not be
wise to schedule one at 9am on a Friday morning.
Student 15
I personally prefer option B as apposed to A. This option allows more time for
coursework and revision.
Student 16
Short answer b, taught over the year. Long answer below.
Personally, as you know I don't examine well, so the idea of modules being taught
over the whole year appeals to me. However, the thought of being examined on
what was taught in the first semester at the end of the second does not. I think,
working through weeks 12-15 of semester one, and creating a longer revision time
at the end of semester two, prior to the exams is a good way to do it. This gives
the opportunity for the things taught early in the year to be brought back into
memory.
Another concern is the amount of coursework, and the timing of the deadlines. With
twice as much material to revise, coursework deadlines past week 8 of semester 2
make things hard.
Furthermore, some modules may not combine to make a single module well. Would
it be a viable alternative to keep them split, but with 7.5 credits each, assessed
purely on coursework in the first semester, and part coursework part exam in the
second? I can't think of any modules this would apply to.
Student 17
I prefer having modules that run over the course of the whole year, but I would
also prefer it if the assessment was split, possibly a small assessed test at the end
of the first Semester that contributes say 25% of the module so that there is not so
much riding on the exams at the end of the year. It would also be good if all
coursework was finished by the end of the second term so that more of my
personal study time could be devoted to revision.
Student 18
I personally prefer the modules to run over the two years. I am on the Systems
Engineering program and I am finding it really hard to keep up with Aerodynamics
because of the fast pace it has to be taught at.
19
The disadvantage of this system, is the increasing chance of everyone forgetting
what work they did in October or November when it comes to June. Perhaps having
January exams is not a bad idea. The pressure will be taken off the students
towards the end of the year because the workload is less. There is a better
understanding of the subject too. For example the Mechanics module this year
could have easily had an exam in January, but now we have to recap on all that
work after three months of break.
So, personally, I would like double semester modules with exams in January.
Student 19
I like having the module spread over the whole year although by not having exams
at Christmas it is hard to gauge how well you are doing overall in the subject. By
only having 1 final exam there is no chance check your own progress and maybe do
something about it if need be before the final exams. It also means that there is a
lot of highly weighted exams within the space of about 2weeks at the end semester
two which can get quit stressfully and frustrating.
Student 20
I feel that having modules taught over the whole year provides a more thorough
explanation of new concepts and allows us to understand the ideas being put across
more easily. Also, the fewer exams, the better! So, I vote (b).
Thanks for giving us the chance to make our voices heard!
Student 21
In answer to your important question, I would DEFINATELY prefer the option B).
This is because the exams are broken up through the year and you're not required
to remember a whole years work for the end of the year exams. Even if the
modules were to run through the 2 semesters could we not have half the content
examined in January and the other in the summer??! The amount of exams isn't
the problem its the amount to remember from so long ago!
Comment: It appears that this student actually means option (a).
Student 22
b) I find it easier if the modules spread over the whole year. Gives us more time to
think about what we've been taught and to hopefully come to some sort of
understanding of it. Also as I keep finding, things you learn in one module relate to
20
what you learn in another and its these little bridges between modules that I think
give you a better understanding of the subject.
Student 23
I found the structure of this year to be very helpful, allowing adequate time
distribution to each of my subjects. The only thing I would like to suggest is to put
the Aerodynamics module in the first semester as a lot of the year including myself
find this a difficult module and as such would like more time to get to grips with it.
Student 24
Two points:
1) I think the whole year modules are a good idea (they give you more time to do
the required work) and to catch up on anything you dont understand (also enabling
a better understanding of how something works, rather than just learning to pass
an exam).
2) I think having 15 credit modules and only being able to fail 20 credits is perhaps
a little bit harsh ( because before you could fail two of the smaller modules - if you
mess them up-) NOW the modules may as well be worth 20 because you can only
fail one anyhow.
Student 25
In response to your email regarding the restructuring of the academic year, I
thought that you would appreciate some feedback from me since I have experience
of being taught under both systems.
I am very much of the opinion that being taught modules across the whole year is a
more advantageous way of learning. The simple fact that there is a greater amount
of time to take in the information we are being taught has, I feel, left me with a far
better understanding of all of the subjects which I am learning.
I have found more time to complete tutorials and re-read lecture notes before the
lecturer moves on to different topics within the module. I have felt less pressured
as coursework deadlines have approached and far better able to organise my time.
This is in stark contrast to last year where, I was struggling to bring together
coursework for several modules, all by the end of the semester as well as
attempting to revise the entirety of the subject matter in preparation for an exam.
The slower pace of the year long modules has allowed me to take my time and
balance work between the classes far more effectively than I would have otherwise
21
been able to do. It has been a great help academically and I know more about the
subjects I am studying, rather than simply learning "how to pass an exam" because
I have insufficient time to learn the material thoroughly.
Student 30
I choose (A).
Please try to have 5 examinations, instead of 6. In my point of view, I think the
only good thing of having a (B) system is should a student fail a module(s), it
would be better for him to leave university mid-year instead of end of academic
year as it will save him from spending more money. This is especially so for
international students who are paying full tuition fees. But, in the end, I still choose
(A), as I want to enjoy Christmas.
22
Appendix D
A final year (Part C) student of on the Engineering Physics undergraduate programme
undertook two 15-credit modules as options. He was sent the following e-mail:
You have this year been taking two modules from Electronic and Electrical
Engineering; ELB003 Renewable Energy Sources B and ELB004 Control System
Design B. As you know these modules are weighted at 15-credits and timetabled
for two hours per week over the whole year. I am currently reviewing the year and
would be very grateful if you could answer a few questions for me.
a) How did you find the modules that you chose?
b) Did you seek any advice in your department about your choice?
c) Have you been able to integrate them into your timetable easily?
Finally, could you let me have your impressions on the way the modules have gone.
His response was:
>a) How did you find the modules that you chose?
Browsing through the module list on the learn server.
> b) Did you seek any advice in your department about your choice?
I had to see my personal tutor about my choices but that was more of a formality.
> c) Have you been able to integrate them into your timetable easily?
Last semester was fine. This semester there has been 1 clash a week. I don't
think it has been a problem, I have picked up all the notes anyway, I'll find out
properly when I sit the exam.
23