Course analysis (course evaluation)
Course code 1BI036
Course title
General and Organic Chemistry
Credits 12hp Semester
(spring/autumn) HT-20
Period
September 23 - November 11, 2020
Course coordinator Bernhard Lohkamp
Examiner
Bernhard Lohkamp Teacher in charge of component
Michael Landreh
Other participating teachers
various
Number of registered students during the three week check
54
Number approved on the last course date
34
Response frequency course valuation survey
80%
Other methods for student influence (in addition to concluding course valuation) Course committee meetings (3 time, 2 during the course, 1 after)
Feedback reporting of the course valuation results to the students
Survey (without comments) published on the open course page. Whole survey sent to students who have participated in the survey. Discussed survey with the course committee.
Note that...
The analysis should (together with a summarising quantitative summary of the students’ course valuation) be communicated to the education committee at the department responsible for the course and for programme courses also the programme coordinating committee.
The analysis was communicated to the education committee on the following date:
07/12/20The analysis was communicated to the programme coordinating committee on the following date:
07/12/20
1. Description of any conducted changes since the previous course occasion based on the views of former students
Lab experiments and compendium were revised. The content of the course revised and reduced. Some teaching occasions were conducted as blended learning. Most changes though were related to the Covid-19 pandemic.
2. Brief summary of the students’ valuations of the course
(Based on the students’ quantitative responses to the course valuation and key views from free text responses. Quantitative summary and any graphs are attached.)
Online learning in general appeared to be challenging for the students and in particular here since there are some difficult concept to bring across and the content appeared to have been too condense and much.
Nevertheless, students were engaged in critical thinking, enjoyed the laboratory work and mostly achieved the intended learning outcomes. Particularly problematic seems to have been an increased overlap in content and the final exam (which was changed in the last minute to be online due to the arrival of the 2nd wave of Covid-19 infections in the Stockholm area). The final exam was deemed to have been too short in time and rather test technical proficiency than chemical knowledge and course goals. Overall, the student- teacher communication was good, and students were more responsible for their own learning than usual.
The majority of students was positive towards the blended learning (mixing of lectures and self-studies),
however, some prefer to have more time between theory and practice and point out the issue that self-study time is decreased in favour of lecture time.
3. The course coordinator’s reflections on the implementation and results of the course
Strengths of the course:
Laboratory work is very much appreciated by the students and they enjoy not just the work but the connection between theory and practice. Sadly, this was cut short this year with fewer lab sessions due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the introduction of pre-lab quizzes for all experiments together with videos of the experiments prepared the students better for the labs they performed. The delivery of the content with lectures and associated seminars and self-study sessions is positive as the students
continuously work on the subject and get the required help if necessary. Some students like to have these combined others do not which seems independent of teaching form (online vs campus).
Weaknesses of the course:
There was some overlap between content of lectures (mainly nomenclature). The content of the course is still perceived as too much (maybe more though due to distance teaching). Although still some content appears “too much” (unnecessary fillers) and other is not mentioned (or only little). In general, the importance of certain parts could be more highlighted. Students have different pre-knowledge and gives different starting points.
3. Other views
General note: it is difficult to delineate the evaluation of the course as such and its adjustment due to the Covid-19 pandemic hence some events, adjustments etc. are rather temporary. Some development work on the course had to be postponed since adjustments to make the teaching safe due to the Covid-19 pandemic had priority.
4. Course coordinator’s conclusions and any suggestions for changes
(If changes are suggested, state who is responsible for implementing them and provide a schedule. )
The pre-lab quizzes in Canvas will be reviewed although they should form the basis of lab preparation in the future as well. However, a shorter pre-lab discussion may be introduced again to have the possibility for students to ask questions prior to the experimentation. The report guidelines together with the expectation will be reviewed and condensed (BLo together with PN to give general report guidelines). The lab
compendium will be revised to include more detail on the experiments esp. where steps are known to be difficult and/or result in mistakes (BLo). Interactive, blended teaching methods (e.g. combination of lecture and self-study session) will continue to be tested to make use of the new “lecture halls”. The pre-lecture part may be extended as to allow more time between theory and practise (BLo and some other teachers). The content of the course will be reviewed to see where things can be removed and where additional information is required. Additionally, teachers will be advised to focus on and highlight the course goal relevant parts (BLo). In case there will be another online examination at distance, the number of submission will be reduced if possible.
Students considered things which are under normal conditions (campus teaching) not to be a problem (or as problematic) as an issue now. E.g. the course content and mechanisms were more difficult to comprehend now than usual (sadly content cannot be reduced as such because teaching is online since the syllabus has to be followed). Interestingly what students expect from teachers (e.g. better Zoom skills, more interactiveness in lectures/seminars, better dialog in lectures) is often inhibited by their own limitations and actions (e.g.
better Zoom skills, participation in lectures/seminars incl. camera on to see reaction of students). Better communication and training of both sides is required here. Furthermore, overlap of content was mentioned now which was not an issue on earlier occasions (or not mentioned). However, there were a number of new teachers on the course this year who may not be as aware of the overall content as others had been before.
To increase the quality of teachers and teaching the importance of teaching (esp. deadlines for lab report corrections) should be lifted within the department (and KI). This is probably a long-term goal which will involve GUA, head of department as well as the course leader (and KI).
Appendices:
