G51SWT Feedback 2004

The overall module average was 53%, a dramatic and pleasing improvement over last year. This suggests that the greater emphasis placed on the use of text books this year had had the desired effect.

Attendance at lab sessions continued to be low although it was better than last year and the average mark for coursework was significantly better than last year. Module feedback suggested that students found the labs unhelpful and wanted "more teaching" but it is hard to see how the current format - one demonstrator acting in response to student queries - can be improved on for what is intended to be a trouble-shooting session. 147 people attempted each coursework which was a good number based on previous years.

1st Coursework

Most people who attempted this managed OK and the average mark was around 50%.

2nd Coursework

The average mark for this was around 65% partly because an element of groupwork was involved and most groups managed to get nearly full marks for that aspect.

3rd Coursework

The average mark was around 60% which was a marked improvement on last year. This may reflect a reordering of the parts of the exercise so that the task involving recursion (which had proved difficult for many people last year) came last. It also may reflect a greater emphasis in lectures on using the text book. There was a disappointing amount of plagiarism and collusion in evidence however.

The Exam

Question 1

This was compulsory question with an average mark of 14/20. This was a dramatic improvement on last year where the average was more like 8/20. It may have been that the sample scripts were taken from an earlier part of the module and represented as a result less challenging material.

Question 2

Make. This was a popular question attempted by 113 students. The average mark was around 50% and demonstrated reasonable competence.

Question 3

Perl. This was a tricky question relying on material covered in the last Perl lecture. In all 26 students attempted it. A lot of strong students did well on the question but a number of weak students did very badly and the average was only 6/20.

Question 4

Software Principles and Qualities. The most popular question attempted by 124 students probably because of its non-technical nature. The average was only 7/20 and performance was quite strange with students generally doing better on the second half of the question which required original thought rather than the first that was simply book work.

Question 5

Design Notation. Performance was poor on this question with an average of only 4/20 and it was attempted by only 31 students. The poor performance may be because the material was not directly covered in lectures but instead was taught by example and the students were referred to the text book. In module feedback students indicated they liked this lecture style but it clearly has implications for understanding and may require backing up with exercises of some sort.