Course Least and Most Valuable Aspects

I’ve just completed reading all your responses to the two free-form questions on the Take-Home assessment.  While each of you had a different view of the course there were some observations that may interest you.

Serious Responses

The great majority gave serious responses of adequate length with good detail.  Thank you!

Overall Opinions About the Course

While there were certainly critiques (see below), the overall tone was very positive about the benefits of the course.  Two people were fairly explicit that they found it unrewarding, and several found it the most valuable they’d taken at Drexel.

Lectures

Most of you found the lectures valuable for several reasons:

• The variety of subjects covered gave a good sense of the discipliens
• The enthusiasm of the faculty members was much appreciated.

Some of you critiqued some of the lectures for the following reasons:

• Some faculty were too detailed in what they discussed
• Some faculty were rushed and didn’t prepare you fully for the labs

The panel discussion at the end of the term was much appreciated by many for its honesty and what the faculty and graduate students shared about how they studied and what they experienced.

Labs

There were both positive and negative views about the labs.

• Many appreciated the variety of labs and the opportunity to perform calculations in the field
• A smaller number felt the labs were “plug and chug” without any meaning.
• A few felt that some of them, particularly the first, were too elementary, while others appreciated the progression through the term.
• Some disliked having to use Excel so much.  A larger number appreciated the opportunity to gain more experience with it’s capabilities
• The instructions for some labs were lauded while others were criticized as being inadequate.
• The TA’s who provided detailed help were particularly appreciated.
• The Senior Design presentations were applauded by quite a few as giving them a sense of their future at Drexel.
• A few were critical that the language was too technical and also that

Site Visits

The vast majority of you appreciated the site visits to both the Tacony-Palmyra bridge and the Recreation Center.  Within that appreciation there were specific complaints:

• The organization of the visit to the Tacony-Palmyra wasn’t what it could have been, particularly in terms of preparing you for the measurements and calculations.
• Some people wanted more time in the Recreation Center spent on the Basketball court and Air Handlers since they were the subject of the calculations in one lab.

Discussions

The weekly discussions provoked the strongest opposing views.  Overall the positive ones outnumbered the negative ones.

Positive views:

• Quite a few enjoyed the chance to explore their chosen field
• Others enjoyed the opportunity to see what others in their discipline had found, and even to enter into dialogue.
• Several remarked on how they found it prepared them well for the lectures
• Several others found that it opened their eyes to possibilities they hadn’t realized existed (also true about the lectures).

Negative views

• A number of you felt the discussions were make-work and essentially worthless
• Several felt Access-Science was too restrictive and didn’t have sufficient depth.

Personal Observation

I have made notes about what worked and what didn’t this term based on what you’ve said.  For your successors:

• I’ll do my best to improve the lab organization and instructions
• I’ll scratch my head on how to reduce the varying experiences with the discussions, particularly the grading criteria (“confusing” was particularly criticized).

Thanks for your efforts throughout the term.  It’s been a pleasure to be part of the experience with you.

Jim Mitchell