The repeat for this module is project based.
The specification is now available.
Details of how and when to submit will be posted later.
Monday, June 28, 2010
SOFT6007 Repeat Autumn 2010
The repeat assessment for this module will be an in-class lab exam. This assessment will be worth 100%.
This assessment will not be organized by the exams office, so it will not appear on your timetable. For details of the time and location of this assessment students should check this blog closer to the date.
So far the expected date is in the first week of September.
This assessment will not be organized by the exams office, so it will not appear on your timetable. For details of the time and location of this assessment students should check this blog closer to the date.
So far the expected date is in the first week of September.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
SOFT6008 Review
This module was not a big success. Many students struggled right from the beginning and never really got on top of things. I think they many have lacked the required programming skills coming into the module. The results for this module were disappointing but not surprising. I haven't yet figured out what I will do differently next year to improve matters.
Many students did not attend class often enough. There is not a lot I can do about that.
We should have dealt more with the Document Object Model and modifying CSS properties. I don't think we did enough of that. Next time this module is offered I will try to get more of that in.
I believe that a small number of students cheated. Some withdrew their submissions and some others had their work referred to the Registrar's office for further investigation. Continuous Assessment is a much better form of assessment for some subjects. However it can be easily undermined by cheating. At present at CIT the consequences of cheating are so few, that the cost-benefit balance makes cheating profitable, in the main. I think the tide is turning, however, and perhaps word will get out that cheating is riskier than students think.
Many students did not attend class often enough. There is not a lot I can do about that.
We should have dealt more with the Document Object Model and modifying CSS properties. I don't think we did enough of that. Next time this module is offered I will try to get more of that in.
I believe that a small number of students cheated. Some withdrew their submissions and some others had their work referred to the Registrar's office for further investigation. Continuous Assessment is a much better form of assessment for some subjects. However it can be easily undermined by cheating. At present at CIT the consequences of cheating are so few, that the cost-benefit balance makes cheating profitable, in the main. I think the tide is turning, however, and perhaps word will get out that cheating is riskier than students think.
SOFT6007 Review
I was pleased with how SOFT6007 went this year. I think I and the other lecturers teaching on the module to other students did a better job of it this year than last. We also did a good job of ensuring that all the students taking the module did much the same.
I think the assessments this year were more realistic and provided enough of a challenge to the students while still being easy enough to do. I got much more CSS done this year than last year. I had been kind of avoiding it a bit up to now, but if it absolutely necessary that students learn CSS early. I think we did just the right amount of JavaScript.
I found that I progressed very quickly at the start of the semester. But although I was making great progress, I did not bring all the students with me. I will have to watch that in future, and take it slower at the beginning. I think I will have to be stricter on attendance next year. Attendance is the key to success for a module like this.
The results were poor. Students that passed did very well indeed, but they were few. The evening class did better, but that is not surprising. Evening students are a self selected sample and they can drop a class more easily. So that alone can account for the difference. However there was a marked difference in worth ethic also. This year's COM1 class is probably the least interested group of Computing students I have ever encountered.
I believe that a number of students cheated on Assessment 3 for this module. I did not have sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the registrar's office. I might, however, have fewer open lab based assessments in future. I will certainly have to watch students more closely if I do.
I think the assessments this year were more realistic and provided enough of a challenge to the students while still being easy enough to do. I got much more CSS done this year than last year. I had been kind of avoiding it a bit up to now, but if it absolutely necessary that students learn CSS early. I think we did just the right amount of JavaScript.
I found that I progressed very quickly at the start of the semester. But although I was making great progress, I did not bring all the students with me. I will have to watch that in future, and take it slower at the beginning. I think I will have to be stricter on attendance next year. Attendance is the key to success for a module like this.
The results were poor. Students that passed did very well indeed, but they were few. The evening class did better, but that is not surprising. Evening students are a self selected sample and they can drop a class more easily. So that alone can account for the difference. However there was a marked difference in worth ethic also. This year's COM1 class is probably the least interested group of Computing students I have ever encountered.
I believe that a number of students cheated on Assessment 3 for this module. I did not have sufficient evidence to refer the issue to the registrar's office. I might, however, have fewer open lab based assessments in future. I will certainly have to watch students more closely if I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)