Semester Evaluation Report for MED8 Copenhagen
Year:
2014 Spring
Coordinator:
Cumhur Erkut
Date:
8.12.2014
Not endorsed by:
None
Enclosed: Minutes of semester group meetings and (possibly) semester evaluation meeting.
The Semester in General
The semester has started by the objective of better study satisfaction by matching the skills of the students
with the challenges of the program. The key result (KR) aimed were
1. An overall satisfaction grade above 4/5 in the final semester meeting
2. 25 % less retention rate compared to last year.
th
th
Two coordination meetings were conducted on January 2014, Mondays 6 and 27 , with all the teachers
about schedule (lectures, hand-ins, other events) and the workload. All teachers have attended to these
meetings, and enthusiastically contributed to the semester planning.
The group formation required work in preparation. The assigned supervisors in the second meeting
presented the project ideas to the MED8 VIP. Collecting, editing, and publishing the project suggestions took
about 3h, and receiving, reading, and discussing with the supervisors for the assignments another 4h.
Two challenges in this procedure were:
1. More supervision hours were at hand compared to actual projects (and number of students): this resulted
in assigning multiple supervisors based on the group/project competencies, and
2. Some topics were more popular than the others, and students had preferences for supervisors.
The actual formation of project groups took about 1h, building on the preparatory work above.
Two special arrangements for this semester were:
1. Four students have joined EUCROMA.
2. A classical schedule (course days) and mini-projects for integrating course work into semester work.
12, 9, and 6 student representatives have attended to the three Semester Group Meetings (SGMs). SGM1
suggests that the semester start has been perceived smooth. The reasons for multiple supervisors were
explained in the meeting (see above). Semester evaluation during SGM3 has provided constructive
feedback, the students finding the semester interesting. The workload, however, came into discussion,
together with the issue of the differences between the Medialogy BSc and new students. The scheduling
clashes between the course mini-projects and the semester project have been indicated as the primary
reason in not participating in the mid-term activities. In the sequel, specific recommendations on these
will be provided.
The semester survey is unlikely to represent all the students attending to the Medialogy master, as it is
based at most on 6 responses, which do not represent some of the Foundation classes. It is a good start
and a positive direction, however. The survey indicates that only 41% of the participants graded the
semester above 4/5. This is clearly below the KR 1. The students have indicated the scheduling and
immense workload as important factors. Regarding KR 2, we had records of a student leaving the program.
As a side note, three students have disappeared after group formation, not meeting their assigned
supervisor and not completing their semester project work; only to reappear as MED9 students this
semester. In an informal discussion, they have indicated that their group did not function well last semester.
Counting all these, it is unlikely that KR 2 has been achieved.
Infrastructure (projector, long cables, sockets, lockers, etc.) was a recurring theme in SGMs. The Building
Service was informed about them, but no concrete outcome has been observed.
The Project Module
Most semester projects fell behind the schedule, requiring hard work before the deadline for project hand-in
on 28th May 2014, compromising the quality of the work, and in turn, the evaluation of the semester
projects. There was a moderate level of the correspondence between projects and courses. Especially miniprojects were perceived as separate from and not adding much to the final project. Moreover, examples of
past mini-projects have been frequently asked for. SMGs 2 and 3 have more remarks related to miniprojects; some students found it extremely difficult to carry out the mini projects along the semester project.
During the exams, students provided feedback on two issues related to harmonization:
1. Some students had bad experience with remote censors via teleconferencing (connection quality,
questions not heard, attention and engagement unknown). Based on this feedback, the later exams were
carried out by full screen connection to the censor facing towards the students.
2. There were different directions and requirements for the courses during the semester, which had impact
on the examination, especially when the censor is the teacher of the same course from another campus.
Course Module: Multimedia Programming
Students found the course interesting, and enjoyed the freedom to adopt the mini-projects towards their
specific interests. Some sessions were postponed because of the teacher’s illness, but the teacher and
students self-organized on how to compensate those lectures. Lecture material and the need for technical
documentation were commented upon during the SGM 2.
Course Module: Modelling Physical Systems
This course started late compared to the others, but the students have evaluated positively the intense
period with the lectures (SGM2) and appreciated having had all lectures close to each other (SGM3). The
different teaching styles were commented upon, and specific wishes to both teachers were pronounced.
Course Module: Embodied Interaction
1
The requirements of the course were aligned with recent developments in the field by CPH teachers. As a
result, theory was intertwined with implementation, and a complementary lecture by the Aalborg teacher has
been planned to cover specific topics (embodied agents). In practice, illness had also an impact on this plan.
In addition, implementation parts were perceived differently based on the programming background of the
participants. Next edition of the course could indicate a textbook for the theory, and better integrate the
implementation part.
Course Module: Narratives in Digital Culture
This course is most appreciated by its participants because of structure and goals, and successfully
completed one of the experiments (a joint workshop with Game Foundations) in the semester. Another
highlight of the course was that it had good control of content at all three campuses in terms of
harmonization. However, the workload of the course could be recalculated in conjunction with students.
Course Module: Foundations
Five foundations offered to the students have been mostly perceived positively, with general and specific
remarks on the number of lectures, their requirements, and focus. Some students remain sceptical, if they
can claim specialization solely based on a particular foundation course, without pre-existing knowledge.
Foundations - Games
This module is the most popular foundation course, and the participants are generally very positive about its
content and instruction. Some, however, ask for more instructions and guidelines, as well as more sessions.
Foundations - Computer Graphics
Organized as weekly tasks, the course and the relevant material handed to the students have been
appreciated.
1
P. MARSHALL – A. ANTLE– E. V. D. HOVEN – Y. ROGERS, Introduction to the Special Issue on the Theory and Practice of Embodied
Interaction in HCI and Interaction Design, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20/1 (1/3/2013), pp. 1–3
Foundations – Sound and Music Computing
Project focus and self-study style of this module evoked some discussion in the SGMs.
Foundations – Interaction
Suggested references were regarded positively, but more lectures and structure have been asked for.
Foundations – Medialogy
There were no comments on this foundation during the SGMs; it was fortunate that the specificity of this
foundation and its focus on the semester project were highlighted in the final feedback.
Summary and recommendations (to be published on the school’s web site)
The semester has been found interesting, and its scheduling has worked in general well. Feedback indicates
students preferred condensed course activity better. In any case, mini-project idea needs to be carefully
integrated in this plan. Reported workload differences between the courses, as well as the immense
workload perceived throughout the semester are two critical issues that require urgent concentration.
Recommendations
-
Clarify mission, vision, and the identity of Medialogy master program. Be selective in accepting
students who best align with this identity, and have necessary math and programming skills to carry
along. Find a way to bring together students with different backgrounds in semester projects.
-
Give teachers and semester coordinators tools & methods to schedule and evaluate the actual
workload of individual courses.
-
Because of the new Sound and Music Computing and Lighting Design master programs, revise the
Foundations. Revise also their focus, style, and progression.
-
Revise the midterm idea and its practices. Rethink the mini-projects and course hand-ins based on
the workload tools above.
-
Seriously consider the seasonal flu and epidemics for both the students and the teachers.
-
Motivate the students to participate SGMs and the final survey.
-
Monitor students’ path and progression, including retention rates and quantitative/qualitative
feedback. Make this information available to the semester coordinators/teachers.