Louise Dennis: Teaching Portfolio

Home The Six Areas of Competence Support of Learning Design and Planning of Learning Activities Assessment and Giving Feedback Developing Learning Environments Evaluating Practice Using Research to Inform Teaching Role as a Professional Access Disability Diversity Accountability and Quality Critical Appraisals Group Project Individual Project Other Teaching Philosophy Mapping Document Reflective Statement Reference (Word) Statement of Intent Evidence	G51MC2 I have been module convener for G51MC2 for the past two years. Teaching and learning support for this module has been based around 20 traditional lectures and tutorial support. G51MC2 is a mathematics based module and its primary learning outcomes centre around the students' mastery of a number of mathematical techniques. Module Planning G51MC2, Mathematics for Computer Science 2, is a compulsory first year module which I took on in place of G53DDB when I gave it up. I inherited some module notes, weekly exercises and lecture slides from the 1998/1999 session and some partial notes on a new area that had been inserted into the module more recently. The module's primary purpose is to provide the students with a number of mathematical techniques required in later modules. It follows on from a module (Mathematics for Computer Scientists - G51MCS) which provides much foundational material. In the first year I generally used the slides, exercises and notes as I had found them, although I had to write the new area, program correctness, mostly from scratch and I was requested by the MCS lecturer to include some material on Mathematical Induction since he had been unable to cover it in sufficient detail (obviously some material was excised from the module as a result). In general, when preparing this new material, I stuck to the format of the old. There were some to-be expected problems with using lecture slides I had not myself written. Even though I reviewed them extensively I occasionally found that I had lost the thread of the story I was trying to tell, and once or twice, found I had forgotten what I meant to convey by the formulae on the slide, or even how they had been arrived at or what they meant. However even before this happened there was clearly widespread unhappiness with the module material from the students who were finding it too difficult and delivered too swiftly. Assumptions I was making about previous experience with mathematical concepts such as matrices proved ill-founded and the amount and frequency of mathematical proof throughout all the module material was proving daunting. I alleviated this as much as possible on the fly that year but many students were sufficiently put off by the initial lectures that attendance was poor and the exam results were low. This prompted extensive rewriting of the material in subsequent years and a shift away from a presentation in which mathematical proof was constantly interleaved with more calculation or algorithmic based material. Individual Lectures Reflection would suggest that this module would be particular amenable to the example driven style of lecturing described for G51SWT however two reasons have prevented me from (so far) repeating that experiment here. Firstly, I have been unable to find a textbook to cover the majority of the module and the example-driven style is dependent on backup for theoretical material from a text book. I inherited module notes but these proved to be too proof-centred for the ability of the students. Secondly, while the techniques used in Software methods and tools, could generally be quickly described in enough detail for students who had not read the text book to follow the examples, this is not the case with mathematical information where a deeper understanding is generally required. Therefore this module still relies on 20 traditional information-dissemination style lectures as its principle teaching component. e-Learning Resources The module is backed up by an e-Learning resource described more fully in Developing Learning Environments. This is based on one originally created for G51SWT by Jasdeep Kalsi, a third year project student. As well as the normal content you would expect for a module website (lecture slides, previous exam papers, etc.) it contains a noticeboard for communicating with the students and a system by which they can modify their own tutorial allocations. The noticeboard is useful for answering student queries in a manner in which the information becomes and remains permanently accessible to all students. Originally I used WebCT to provide this service but found that very few students actually bothered to access the noticeboard. By placing the service on the same page as lecture notes etc. I was able to dramatically increase usage and thus had greater confidence that my answers to questions were reaching most of the students. Obviously WebCT can also be used for the delivery of lecture slides but I find its interface cumbersome compared to the ease of managing such a system using UNIX file management tools (obviously though I recognise that WebCT is easier for a lecturer without a technical background to use). The tutorial allocation system is useful in reducing the administrative overhead involved in timetabling between 150 and 200 students across 16 tutorials. At the start of the session they are allocated randomly and then can use the website to move their tutorial to another, provided there is space available in that tutorial. Since the system is dynamically updated it is easy for them to see which tutorials still have free spaces instead of engaging (in some cases protracted) correspondence by email with me in order to find a tutorial time they can attend which still has space. I am currently extending the back end of this system to manage the weekly attendance registers taken by tutors so that it automatically flags students who have not attended for a while and need to be chased. Tutorials Alongside the lectures each student is required to attend weekly tutorials where they practice the techniques described in the lectures. A fair amount of the administrative burden of the module is tied up in chasing non-attendance at these tutorials however, I personally view them as the most important aspect of learning on the module and general poor performance in the exam suggests that more practice with the techniques is certainly required. I've not analysed attendance registers but even without this it is clear that there is an issue with teaching quality from the individual tutors with some suffering much poorer attendance than others. It is difficult to know how to rectify this problem since I am not in a position to turn away volunteer tutors and certainly not in a position to vet them for ability to speak English (as far as I can tell the most common complaint about tutorial quality). All the postgraduates within the department wishing to undertake such work are required to attend a course on small group teaching and I supply additional instructions and answer sheets for tutors. However this is clearly insufficient to prevent students feeling that the tutors are unable to adequately help them out of their difficulties with the material. A reduction in student numbers for the last few years may reduce the pressure on this module and allow me to be more selective in the tutors I employ. Another option might be to increase the size of the tutorials (currently there are between 10 and 15 students in each tutorial) and hope that the better tutor quality would offset the reduction in the ability to get individual attention. I take one tutorial group myself, usually early in the week, so that I can convey any problems with the exercise sheets or sample answers to the other tutors. I conduct this tutorial, and recommend that the other tutors do the same, by getting the students to work in groups on individual exercises for the first half of the tutorial and then getting each group to present their answers in the second half. This encourages the students to actually work on and think about the problem but in a less exposed fashion than they would if they had to present their own answer rather than a group answer. The simple fact that the group will have to present the answer to that exercise also encourages them to treat it seriously. It also encourages their presentation skills (including basics such as talking and writing on a white board) and allows the brighter students to teach others - another activity generally recognised as an aid to learning. Students have the option of submitting the weekly exercise sheets to tutors in advance in which case they are returned with comments and marks in the tutorial. The tutorials are listed as compulsory and registers are taken each week. However a student who submits a satisfactorily completed exercise sheet in advance is not required to attend the tutorial. A considerable chunk of the time involved in administering the module is taken up by checking registers and chasing missing students. I am currently in the process of gradually modifying the exercise sheets. At present it is my judgement that the time required to complete each sheet is very variable making it difficult for students to adequately plan their time if they wish to submit the sheet for marking before the tutorial. Examination MC2 is assessed entirely by examination. Since the module content fairly easily breaks up into 5 sections the exam reflects this structure. There is a compulsory short answer section which draws from all parts of the module and then a section containing 5 longer questions each focusing on one aspect of the module of which the students must attempt 3. Originally I designed the short answer section as a true-false multiple choice section based on the results of the PGCHE Group Project I had been a part of. I changed to short answers since no automatic support for MCQs was available within the School and I judged it easier to construct good short answer questions for the subject matter. In particular the first part of the exam is designed to assess factual recall and it is simpler to ask "What is the definition of..." type questions than it is to construct the sort of incorrect yet plausible definitions that would be required for multiple choice. Performance in the exam is poor, though it has improved between the first and second year's I offered the module. To some extent this poor performance is unsurprising given the nature of the module (Maths tends not to be popular with Computer Science undergraduates). However, I have also learned to be more generous in my mark schemes - for instance making several marks available for stating a definition correctly instead of just one. This allows me to reward answers that are close even if they are not completely correct. It also has the knock on effect of reducing the amount of material I attempt to cover in the exam.

G51MC2

I have been module convener for G51MC2 for the past two years. Teaching and learning support for this module has been based around 20 traditional lectures and tutorial support. G51MC2 is a mathematics based module and its primary learning outcomes centre around the students' mastery of a number of mathematical techniques.

Module Planning

G51MC2, Mathematics for Computer Science 2, is a compulsory first year module which I took on in place of G53DDB when I gave it up. I inherited some module notes, weekly exercises and lecture slides from the 1998/1999 session and some partial notes on a new area that had been inserted into the module more recently. The module's primary purpose is to provide the students with a number of mathematical techniques required in later modules. It follows on from a module (Mathematics for Computer Scientists - G51MCS) which provides much foundational material. In the first year I generally used the slides, exercises and notes as I had found them, although I had to write the new area, program correctness, mostly from scratch and I was requested by the MCS lecturer to include some material on Mathematical Induction since he had been unable to cover it in sufficient detail (obviously some material was excised from the module as a result). In general, when preparing this new material, I stuck to the format of the old. There were some to-be expected problems with using lecture slides I had not myself written. Even though I reviewed them extensively I occasionally found that I had lost the thread of the story I was trying to tell, and once or twice, found I had forgotten what I meant to convey by the formulae on the slide, or even how they had been arrived at or what they meant. However even before this happened there was clearly widespread unhappiness with the module material from the students who were finding it too difficult and delivered too swiftly. Assumptions I was making about previous experience with mathematical concepts such as matrices proved ill-founded and the amount and frequency of mathematical proof throughout all the module material was proving daunting. I alleviated this as much as possible on the fly that year but many students were sufficiently put off by the initial lectures that attendance was poor and the exam results were low.

This prompted extensive rewriting of the material in subsequent years and a shift away from a presentation in which mathematical proof was constantly interleaved with more calculation or algorithmic based material.

Individual Lectures

Reflection would suggest that this module would be particular amenable to the example driven style of lecturing described for G51SWT however two reasons have prevented me from (so far) repeating that experiment here. Firstly, I have been unable to find a textbook to cover the majority of the module and the example-driven style is dependent on backup for theoretical material from a text book. I inherited module notes but these proved to be too proof-centred for the ability of the students. Secondly, while the techniques used in Software methods and tools, could generally be quickly described in enough detail for students who had not read the text book to follow the examples, this is not the case with mathematical information where a deeper understanding is generally required. Therefore this module still relies on 20 traditional information-dissemination style lectures as its principle teaching component.

e-Learning Resources

The module is backed up by an e-Learning resource described more fully in Developing Learning Environments. This is based on one originally created for G51SWT by Jasdeep Kalsi, a third year project student. As well as the normal content you would expect for a module website (lecture slides, previous exam papers, etc.) it contains a noticeboard for communicating with the students and a system by which they can modify their own tutorial allocations.

The noticeboard is useful for answering student queries in a manner in which the information becomes and remains permanently accessible to all students. Originally I used WebCT to provide this service but found that very few students actually bothered to access the noticeboard. By placing the service on the same page as lecture notes etc. I was able to dramatically increase usage and thus had greater confidence that my answers to questions were reaching most of the students. Obviously WebCT can also be used for the delivery of lecture slides but I find its interface cumbersome compared to the ease of managing such a system using UNIX file management tools (obviously though I recognise that WebCT is easier for a lecturer without a technical background to use).

The tutorial allocation system is useful in reducing the administrative overhead involved in timetabling between 150 and 200 students across 16 tutorials. At the start of the session they are allocated randomly and then can use the website to move their tutorial to another, provided there is space available in that tutorial. Since the system is dynamically updated it is easy for them to see which tutorials still have free spaces instead of engaging (in some cases protracted) correspondence by email with me in order to find a tutorial time they can attend which still has space. I am currently extending the back end of this system to manage the weekly attendance registers taken by tutors so that it automatically flags students who have not attended for a while and need to be chased.

Tutorials

Alongside the lectures each student is required to attend weekly tutorials where they practice the techniques described in the lectures. A fair amount of the administrative burden of the module is tied up in chasing non-attendance at these tutorials however, I personally view them as the most important aspect of learning on the module and general poor performance in the exam suggests that more practice with the techniques is certainly required. I've not analysed attendance registers but even without this it is clear that there is an issue with teaching quality from the individual tutors with some suffering much poorer attendance than others. It is difficult to know how to rectify this problem since I am not in a position to turn away volunteer tutors and certainly not in a position to vet them for ability to speak English (as far as I can tell the most common complaint about tutorial quality). All the postgraduates within the department wishing to undertake such work are required to attend a course on small group teaching and I supply additional instructions and answer sheets for tutors. However this is clearly insufficient to prevent students feeling that the tutors are unable to adequately help them out of their difficulties with the material. A reduction in student numbers for the last few years may reduce the pressure on this module and allow me to be more selective in the tutors I employ. Another option might be to increase the size of the tutorials (currently there are between 10 and 15 students in each tutorial) and hope that the better tutor quality would offset the reduction in the ability to get individual attention. I take one tutorial group myself, usually early in the week, so that I can convey any problems with the exercise sheets or sample answers to the other tutors. I conduct this tutorial, and recommend that the other tutors do the same, by getting the students to work in groups on individual exercises for the first half of the tutorial and then getting each group to present their answers in the second half. This encourages the students to actually work on and think about the problem but in a less exposed fashion than they would if they had to present their own answer rather than a group answer. The simple fact that the group will have to present the answer to that exercise also encourages them to treat it seriously. It also encourages their presentation skills (including basics such as talking and writing on a white board) and allows the brighter students to teach others - another activity generally recognised as an aid to learning.

Students have the option of submitting the weekly exercise sheets to tutors in advance in which case they are returned with comments and marks in the tutorial. The tutorials are listed as compulsory and registers are taken each week. However a student who submits a satisfactorily completed exercise sheet in advance is not required to attend the tutorial. A considerable chunk of the time involved in administering the module is taken up by checking registers and chasing missing students.

I am currently in the process of gradually modifying the exercise sheets. At present it is my judgement that the time required to complete each sheet is very variable making it difficult for students to adequately plan their time if they wish to submit the sheet for marking before the tutorial.

Examination

MC2 is assessed entirely by examination. Since the module content fairly easily breaks up into 5 sections the exam reflects this structure. There is a compulsory short answer section which draws from all parts of the module and then a section containing 5 longer questions each focusing on one aspect of the module of which the students must attempt 3.

Originally I designed the short answer section as a true-false multiple choice section based on the results of the PGCHE Group Project I had been a part of. I changed to short answers since no automatic support for MCQs was available within the School and I judged it easier to construct good short answer questions for the subject matter. In particular the first part of the exam is designed to assess factual recall and it is simpler to ask "What is the definition of..." type questions than it is to construct the sort of incorrect yet plausible definitions that would be required for multiple choice.

Performance in the exam is poor, though it has improved between the first and second year's I offered the module. To some extent this poor performance is unsurprising given the nature of the module (Maths tends not to be popular with Computer Science undergraduates). However, I have also learned to be more generous in my mark schemes - for instance making several marks available for stating a definition correctly instead of just one. This allows me to reward answers that are close even if they are not completely correct. It also has the knock on effect of reducing the amount of material I attempt to cover in the exam.

Louise Dennis: Teaching Portfolio

The Six Areas of Competence

Role as a Professional