You Said We Did

2023-24 ACADEMIC YEAR

YEAR 1

• GEE104

  • Students asked when the marks from the 5% quiz in thermo last semester would be released. AN has raised with Brant. 

  • Requests were made for past papers for GEE104. AN has made these available now. 

• COM160

  • Concerns were raised about the teaching approach in the coding module, with students expressing a desire for more practical examples on NetBeans rather than solely relying on slides.

  • Comparison of programming languages highlighted, with students noting the quicker speed of Java compared to Python.

  • Suggestions were made for the timely release of visual aids and questions after tutorial classes for better understanding and preparation.

  • Suggestions were made for earlier release of coding module solutions and clearer communication regarding variable names and concepts.

  • AN to speak with Siobhan.

• GEE103:

  • Sergio's teaching approach was commended for his effective use of worked examples.

  • It was noted that Sergio’s head sometimes obscurs the lower 20% of the screen, and that sometimes he moves on too quickly and needs to give students a bit longer to copy the notes, as his left hand covers them up. 

  • AN has informed Sergio, who has taken this on board

• MAS161

  • Mixed feedback was provided on maths teaching, with praise for one lecturer, and less so for another.

  • AN has fed this back to Wodu Majin in MAS who will talk to module leaders. 

• Assessment Load:

  • Students expressed feelings of intensity due to the recent assessment load.

  • Students were advised that the assessments are distributed as much as possible to avoid “pinch points”, but to seek support if they feel particularly overloaded. 

• GEC

  • Students asked if they can receive the peer feedback from Global Engineering Challenge. 

  • AN has raised this with the GEC team. The response is as follows: "The peer review was not designed as a mechanism to assess students' performance in teamwork. Teamwork is not among the learning outcomes for the week, nor do these outcomes correspond to AHEP learning outcome C16. Consent was not obtained from students to share their peer review scores and feedback with others. Revealing this information without consent would be unethical. The purpose of the peer review process was to ensure that students who were present but did not actively participate or contribute to the team received a mark that accurately reflected their input. Students are encouraged as part of the week to self assess their teamwork and leadership performance and record this in mySkills". However, the GEC team will consider the implementation of peer review and release of feedback for next year.

• TellUS

  • Students noted that the module convenor reports are ot complete for all modules. It cannot inspire students to engage with TellUS if the academics do not. 

  • AN has raised this at Faculty level. Departments have been reminded of the importance of staff engagement and asked to remind staff of this.

Year 2 

Overall comments this semester

• Students noted the challenge of having multiple assignments and a “fish testing” session due in the same week for GEE205 (30%) and CPE270 (37.5%). While students appreciated the deadline extension in GEE205, there was still a pinch point. 

• Students expressed that Year 2 Semester 2 has been the most challenging so far due to increased contact hours, although they found the content less challenging compared to Semester 1. Students didn’t feel any changes could be made to reduce the challenge. 

• It was asked if the Module directory 2024-25 is available. This is currently being updated, and will be shared once completed. In the meantime, students should be able to find module details by googling the module code + Sheffield.

• It was asked if students need to know aspen for any year 3 modules. It should be the case that no core modules require knowledge that GEE students have not covered, without them being made aware of it. However, should this not be the case, students should make the GEE team aware.

GEE201

• Students welcomed the availability of iForge and project space over Easter for those needing extra time for GEE201. 

• RJ has contacted students to ensure they are aware of iForge/project space/service manufacture availability over Easter.

GEE202

• Very positive feedback on the delivery of this module, and Mahmoud’s teaching style. Students were informed that Mahmoud was assigned to this module in response to previous students feedback. 

• AN has informed MM of this positive feedback. 

GEE204

• Students suggested a more even pace for the thermo content throughout the semester. 

• Students mentioned some thermo past paper content is no longer in the module, but was not clearly marked on the past papers. 

• AN has raised this with Yajue. 

• The thermo tutorials are good, with the format of paired questions being found particularly helpful. 

• AN to adapt fluids tutorial sheets to similar style.

GEE205

• Students have almost finished the content. Several students say they have liked the style in which it was taught. They felt clear that the lectures are designed to be a recap of content that students review themselves beforehand. However, it was felt it would be helpful if this was made clearer to students at the beginning of the module.

• Some students found different aspects of the information more useful for their learning, such as the 10 minute condensed videos, and the summary notes. There is a lot of useful information, but students feel that it is an overload, that it is not entirely clear which material is required for the module, and which could be considered further reading. 

• Students were reminded that there is a weekly guide that states the essential tasks and optional tasks; students felt this could be made clearer from the outset to aid students in finding it.

• Students felt the different colours used on blackboard can be confusing, with the red colour disliked.

• AN has fed this back to the module leader.

GEE206

• Students felt that the materials module encompasses multiple topics that can feel quite separate (like 4 different modules), but appreciated the teaching methods of the tutors. They suggested implementing quizzes after lectures for optical and electrical materials to aid understanding.

• Students without Chemistry A-level find the content in electrical materials more challenging. Concern was raised regarding whether module leaders are fully aware of students' backgrounds compared to other departments. Students were informed that the other students are not required to have A-Level Chemistry so many of them will be in a similar position. 

• Students suggested providing additional content or a longer introduction to Chemistry-based content, possibly drawing from Year 1 modules.  

• AN has fed this back to the module leader.

GEE208

• Module content is delivered by Hassan in S1 and Helen/Matthew in S2, and both semesters have been enjoyed. Students enjoyed the content for S1, but felt the speed it was delivered was a bit too fast. They suggested less examples be provided, with more time allocated to work through each one. 

• TD confirmed that Hassan was planning to pace content in a different manner for next year, based on previous feedback.

• Labs were enjoyable, and helped to consolidate knowledge.

CPE217

• Content delivery felt slightly rushed, but manageable.

• Lectures are thorough and relevant to industry.

• Students highlighted issues with combined modules with Chemical Engineers, particularly concerning varying levels of prior knowledge among group members (e.g. ASPEN). Students emphasised that groups shouldn't be penalised if a member lacks necessary knowledge. AN & TD discussed how General Engineering students have strengths in group work and project management, so these are skills they bring to the group. In industry, groups are formed from engineers who may not be able to complete all areas of a project, so this is good practice for placement.

• Discussion was held on whether GEE-only students should be separated in modules currently combined with other cohorts. Students preferred mixed cohorts as long as it didn't disadvantage GEE students. 

MAS261

• It was felt that the tutorials in semester 2 are not as helpful as semester 1. It was expressed that the questions could be given before the session, so students could work on them before getting to tutorials, where they are currently shown how to answer questions without much time to attempt them themselves. Last year tutorials were in a flat workroom, with the cohort split into 2. This gave more opportunity to answer questions and to ask for help. Students also got the questions beforehand. This approach would be preferred for MAS261. 

• AN has raised this with Wodu Majin in maths, who will discuss it with module leaders. 

YEAR 3/4

• Group Work Issues in MEC303:

  • Students highlighted difficulties with group work dynamics, including communication challenges and disorganisation when working with MEC students.

  • It was noted that the group project lacked opportunities for effective teamwork, or encouragement to work as a team. 

  • Noted that the exam format had changed. The removal of the little book of thermofluids from exams affected exam preparation, as previous papers and tutorials were not relevant to the new format.

  • TD to discuss with module leader. 

  • AN held a meeting of design module leaders to discuss groupwork teaching strategy. A strategy for developing groupwork skills more explicitly through GEE101, GEE201 and GEE301 is being implemented for 2024-25. 

• Challenges with MAT3910 Exam Format:

  • Students were unaware of changes in the exam format, which now requires completion of all questions rather than selecting from a choice.

  • XZ has spoken with the MAT3910 module leader. 

• Concerns Regarding CIV201 Module:

  • Students found the CIV201 module overly demanding for its credit value (given the lower weighting compared to other year 3 modules under the new degree classification rules).

  • Suggestions were made to re-code the module as a Year 3 module, although challenges with university regulations were acknowledged.

  • Students requested clearer guidance on study materials and preparation for the module.

  • AN has raised this with the module leader, who has since held 1-1 meetings with the relevant students. 

• Issues with MEng Project Supervision:

  • Concerns were raised regarding the suitability of some supervisors, particularly in cases where the supervisor is not from the Faculty of Engineering.

  • The responsiveness of supervisors to emails was questioned.

  • It was noted that the vast majority of supervisors are very diligent and familiar with IPE project processes. 

  • AN has discussed directly with the supervisor mentioned, and believes the situation is now resolved but AN and HJ will keep a close eye.  

• Student Concerns about School Changes:

  • Students expressed dissatisfaction with upcoming changes in schools, including the removal of IPE and the chosen name for the new school.

  • The GEE team reassured students that the changes will not impact them negatively, and may provide opportunities to do things better. 

  • GEE team to keep students informed on progress with the school restructure. 

• Questions on Challenging Chemistry Module:

  • HJ took notes on a challenging CBE module, where a student questioned the difficulty level of the questions.

  • HJ to investigate. 

DELIVERY CHANGES - 2020-21 SPRING

Due to the demanding nature of the CPE270 assessments in the later weeks of Semester 2 and a necessary slight imbalance on module delivery,  following discussions with students, some modules such as GEE205 were front loaded so that the delivery and assessment was finished by week 7 of Semester 2.

Introduction of the BEng - 2019-20 ACADEMIC YEAR

Due to a perceived unfairness in the options available to BEng students, it was decided to create entry and exit routes on BEng to match those on MEng.