CONTENTS | NEXT PAGE

The 1997-98 course was evaluated by all 10 students using the Nominal Group technique. Briefly, the students generated and then prioritised statements in response to two questions:

How might the course be strengthened?

What are the strengths of the course?

The results are shown below. The scores are arbitrary numbers, but represent the relative importance of the statements on the basis of votes by the students.

	How might the course be strengthened?	Total
1	More priority to Molecular Biologists in TACS sessions	76
2	Need for modules to be tailor-made for Mol Biol	74
3	Specialist Mol Biol module relating to up-to-date techniques	71
4	More feedback on exams	68
5	1LH38 was too difficult and irrelevant	67
6	Avoidance of 2 month break in labwork	67
7	TACS sessions too long and not informative	64
8	Complete rethink of project, dissertation and exam timing	64
9	Re-timetable the TACS exam during the semester	63
10	Recognition of Mol Biol as a group within larger groups	60
11	Workload too great in first semester	54
12	Second semester material relevant to first semester exams	50
13	Start project lab-work earlier	47
14	Exams held too soon after Xmas break, given 1st semester workload	47
15	Unavailability and unapproachability of some staff	44
16	Loss of Xmas holiday to revision after 12 week term	41
17	Need for integration between topics and modules	38
	What are the strengths of the course?	Total
1	In-depth project work provides good basis for future study/employment	126
2	Size of the group	112
3	Good handbook covering the whole year	99
4	Practice project talk a good idea for providing feedback	95
5	Broad range of topics covered by the course	94
6	Choice of modules enables you to direct your own degree	90
7	Information in lectures was up-to-date	80
8	Split exams	71
9	Quality of most lectures	71
10	High chance of receiving chosen project	64

The conclusions have been addressed as below:

1. There are a number of high-priority statements which refer to the generalised problem that the Molecular Biologists are ‘sandwiched’ between the Biochemists and the Geneticists. The ideal solution to this problem is to have specific units for Molecular Biologists; however, this is impractical, as there are so few students (indeed, this fact is cited as a strength of the course). This problem has been addressed by a reminder to staff to bear in mind the presence of Molecular Biologists in their audience, and by the provision of a number of TACS sessions which are purely intended for the Molecular Biology students.
2. There is no real evidence that the students disliked the fact of January exams (introduced for the first time this year); however they were certainly unhappy with their timing, immediately after Christmas, and the consequent long break in project labwork. Unfortunately, the timing of the semesters and exams is beyond the control of the School, although an attempt will be made to timetable the January exams as late as possible in the exam period.
3. As revealed in the statements, and in further discussion, the students were quite concerned about the balance of work between the two semesters. Too much in the first, given the revision time available. However, conversely, they feel that the first half of the semester is rather empty. This has been addressed by time-tabling lecture courses and TACS sessions towards the beginning of the semester as far as possible, and bringing forward the submission date for the Dissertation. This should allow time for revision towards the end of the semester.

The Director would be grateful for any further comments or suggestions students or staff may have concerning the results of this exercise.

CONTENTS | NEXT PAGE