DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

Wrap-up meeting for Year 1 BSc/MSci Computer Science (2003/04) held on Tuesday 1 June 2004.

In attendance: Graham Roberts (Undergraduate Tutor), Steve Hailes (Director of Studies) , Jill Saunders (Dept Admin), and a large group of Year 1 students. 

The following notes are to record the main points, and will be reported to the Departmental Teaching Committee for note/discussion/action as appropriate.

1. Why does the dept teach Java instead of C? GAR explained that the dept had decided to teach Java in-depth some years ago because of its various teaching advantages as an object-oriented language;

2. Some students would be keen to take a C++ conversion course. It was explained that the dept is unable to offer this because of resourcing constraints. However, the idea behind our programming teaching methods is that students should be able to pick up other languages easily, having mastered Java. It was pointed out that the department will be introducing a course in C into the third year;

3. ASTR1B11 had proved to be a very difficult option because of lack of support for non-Physics & Astronomy students. GAR advised anyone facing such difficulties to speak up early; 

4. Coursework seemed to be easier than the exams, and was not related to the exam questions. Students were also not keen on coursework which contributed to few marks. GAR explained the philosophy behind coursework; 

5. There have been communication issues. An example was a very late announcement by a lecturer that the number of exam questions to be answered was changed. This had an adverse effect on some students' revision strategies. JFS agreed that this should not happen: the assessment arrangements are meant to be recorded correctly on the syllabus pages at the start of each session. GAR's view was that a revision strategy based on learning only a minimum number of areas, was very unsatisfactory; 

6. A different communication issue was that a student only found out very late on that he had been allocated a tutor in the Maths dept. It was also found that the MATHB45 lecturer didn't have enough time to offer assistance. It was AGREED to ask the Maths dept about the possibility of more help sessions;

7. A further comment was made about the way that other depts (eg Maths) did not provide handouts, and it was impossible to make good notes from the blackboard. SMVH commented that Maths teaching was often most effective when done via blackboard notes. GAR commented that it is a relatively recent development for universities to provide detailed notes, and the result is that some students have become over-dependent. It was AGREED to ask the Maths dept whether it could provide notes for B45;

8. The on-line notes for some courses seem to disappear at the crucial exam time. GAR suggested that students should flag this up to the relevant lecturer at the time; 

9. There was confusion over differences between content in lecture notes, and in text books, relating to Architecture. Students were left unclear which to follow;

10. Why does CS suggest options from other depts when they are not timetabled to be available. It was explained that, unfortunately, the co-ordination of such a wide range of courses is beyond out control; 

11. There were many clashing coursework deadlines at the end of term. GAR agreed that this is difficult to resolve. Efforts are made to hand out coursework at an early stage in the term to give students as much notice as possible, and the Year Co-ordinators have a role in checking for overload and taking corrective action; 

12. It would be helpful to hold mid-sessional exams (eg as in 1B1A). It was AGREED to ask the Theory lecturers if this might be possible; 

13. Problem classes were variable in quality, with some being held by people who were unable to help with solutions. GAR explained that this is sometimes the nature of problem-solving. At University level, we are moving out of the domain whereby there is usually an easy answer. Some of the questions set were intended to be open-ended. Again, however, it was stressed that students should give feedback early if there are issues to be resolved; 

14. A lecturer had abandoned a class early. This was because he suspected that someone was trying to hack into his laptop (bluetooth issue). The students affected felt aggrieved.

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

Wrap-up meeting for Year 2 BSc/MSci Computer Science (2003/04) held on Tuesday 1 June 2004.

In attendance: Cecilia Mascolo (Year 2 Co-ordinator), Graham Roberts (Undergraduate Tutor), Jill Saunders (Dept Admin), and a large group of Year 2 students. 

The following notes are to record the main points, and will be reported to the Departmental Teaching Committee for note/discussion/action as appropriate.

1. There was a significant overlap in material between MATHB46 and Theory III. CM reported that this should be solved by the changes to the curriculum for future years; 

2. There were concerns about Year 3 concurrency teaching as a result of the changes. CM explained that the lecturer for the new course will ensure that next year's Year 3 will cover the essentials; 

3. Why are most option courses timetabled for Term 2? The main reason is they are taught alongside masters students, who have core courses in Term 1, and options in Term 2. The same applies to a large extent for the UG programme, with 3C02, 3005 and 3C04 all being Term 1 courses; 

4. GAR stressed that BSc students should plan their projects/supervisor _before_ the vacation. MSci students, too, should think ahead and plan their Year 3 options to help with their project idea; 

5. There was a discussion about the core teaching, and whether the UCL programme required students to do more core material than others. The response was that our programme is designed to cover a good broad basis (including compilers and operating systems) as well as offering the opportunity for specialisation; 

6. It was queried whether the exam timetable could be issued earlier. In short, the answer was no.

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

Wrap-up meeting for Year 3 BSc/MSci Computer Science (2003/04) held on Tuesday 1 June 2004.

In attendance: Graham Roberts (Undergdauate Tutor), Jill Saunders (Dept Admin), and a group of Year 3 (Mainly MSci) students. 

The following notes are to record the main points, and will be reported to the Departmental Teaching Committee for note/discussion/action as appropriate.

1. The timing of 3C05 and 3C16 was discussed. Several students thought that these would be better in Term 1 as they could then apply knowledge/skills etc to their Group Project.  GAR felt that it should not be necessary to use Gant charts in group projects, however it was AGREED to draw this to the attention of the Director of Studies; 

2. Several students felt that there was too much covered in 3C05,and 3C35; 

3. There were positive comments about the group project, and 3C03; 

4. There were concerns about the imbalance between T1 and T2 courses;

5. Several students who took 3C58 AI & Neural Nets thought the exam was overly difficult: they were not prepared for the questions; 

6. There were concerns over the bunching together of examinations (5 in one week);

7. There was a query over the web information on 3C16 Technology Management and Professional Issues, and the number of hours of reading; 

8. Several students said they would have liked a module n programming in Year 3, and asked why there were no courses in C++. GAR explained that we were constrained by resources, and also that programming was taught in so that students should expect to be able to pick up other languages by themselves; 

9. It was queried whether Year 4 MSci students would be able to take the new 3005 course. ACTION: GAR to clarify with Steve Hailes;

10. The job market is very tough, and employees demand wide ranges of skills, including other programming languages;

11. There was a discussion about the mechanism for MSci students to ‘bale out' at this stage and opt for a degree in ‘Computing' without having undertaken a final year project.

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

Wrap-up meeting for Year 4 MSci Computer Science (2003/04) held on Tuesday 1 June 2004.

In attendance: Graham Roberts (UG Tutor), Tony Hunter (Year 4 Co-ordinator), Jill Saunders (Dept Admin), and several Year 4 students.

The following notes are to record the main points, and will be reported to the Departmental Teaching Committee for note/discussion/action as appropriate. 

1. The project hand-in date clashed with exams. The intention had been to give MSci students extra time compared with the BSc students, however in practice this had caused people problems. This has already been flagged up as needing to be reviewed.  This year's MSci finalists were the first cohort to take pre-Easter exams, and they found it difficult to juggle revision and project work.   Ideally, students should start (and make good progress) on their projects earlier in the year;

2. It was suggested that a template for project reports could be made available. This would overcome the difficulties some people had with MS Word and its formatting problems. Latex was suggested as a solution;

3. Several students were granted extensions on their project hand-in date. This was felt to be unfair. GAR stressed that extensions had been agreed largely for medical reasons;

4. Those present confirmed that the new ISD print quota system had not affected them but that they would have run out if the quota had been implemented earlier. It will have repercussions for next years' students;

5. It was suggested that the dept should move more toward binary marking for coursework.  This was because most lecturers did not use the full range of marks available when awarding percentage marks (ie seldom awarding >80%), so it was impossible to gain all possible coursework marks.  It was AGREED to flag this up to tutors.

6. Students would benefit greatly from sessions with tutors to learn better exam techniques, to understand what is required to get excellent marks. The student who raised this item commented that preparation given for 3C11 had been particularly helpful;

7. Final year project supervision. Students were confused as to what degree of supervision they should get. For example, how often tutorials should be held, what a student is meant to do during a tutorial, how much help is given with programming and report writing, whether supervisors should be expected to read and comment on report drafts in detail. It was AGREED to raise this at the Departmental Teaching Committee in order to clarify issues;

9. Whether it is better to take a range of 4C courses from the various strands, or try to specialise in one subject.

JFS
June 2004