Thunnissen_68762_BLOK8

Notes evaluation of the 2016 course on Project Based Design at the SMU.

Date of evaluation meeting: 27-04-2016

Place: Shanghai Maritime University

Participants: Hao Zhiyong, Xie Xiang, Peng Yue, Edward Mouw, Martijn Dumez, Laura Deetman, Janne Sophie van den Hamer, Noraly Thunnissen, Geke Deetman.

Introduction

The following summarizes the discussion between the HZ teachers of the PBD course 2016 and the SMU assisting teachers on experiences and improvement possibilities for the course. The overall impression of the preparations and the course process was again very good although we always strive for further improvement.

The course preparations

· The Chinese as well as the Dutch teachers were very happy with the preparations. The wish list of the Dutch teachers arrived in time and with the right level of detail and was mentioned as an example for other courses. The Dutch teachers were very pleased with the communication during the preparations and the excellent way in which everything was organized in time. During the course the teachers could focus on the content of the course as there was no need to worry about organizational issues.

The students

· The student population this year was different from last year. As last year our Sino Dutch program was evaluated very well by the Chinese Ministry of Education, they wanted to expand the student population and offer the opportunity to students from all provinces to participate in the program. As a consequence students with less proficiency in English than the Shanghainese students participated in the course.

· This was recognized by the Dutch teachers although there were again quite a few students whose English was excellent. Especially during group work they supported their colleagues and translated the assignments and explanation of the teacher for them.

· During the course students gave quite good feedback about their experiences. There were no comments about the English.

· Students get a lot of new information and have to get accustomed to a different style of teaching, but they did quite well.

· We also saw that shy students improved after a few classes.

· This year all teams except one worked very enthusiastically and very hard on their group assignments. The value of the good cooperation between the Chinese and the Dutch teachers was proven again, when after a clear discussion with the Chinese teacher that last group started to work seriously too. However at the end they could not compensate completely for their lack of effort at the start and ended with the lowest scores for their reports.

The results

· The results of the reports were slightly better than last year. Especially the score on the PM reports has improved. During the afternoon sessions students were very active asking the teachers for support and advice.

· Two groups scored relatively low on the PM report. Twelve of the 28 PM reports and 8 EDM reports were excellent and five groups scored excellent on both reports.

· Although the final test contained similar questions than last year, the results were less good. Around one third of the students got less than 5,5 points. This was for all except for two students compensated sufficiently by higher scores on the reports.
A possible explanation is that for group work, correct understanding of the English language is less important, as individual team members can do the initial work in Chinese and their colleagues can translate later on. In order to understand the multiple choice questions of the exam, a higher level of understanding of English is needed.

· In informal discussions with the SMU teachers during the course, students gave quite good feedback about their experiences. There were no comments about the English.

· At the end of the course the Dutch teachers asked the students for an evaluation. Results are similar to last year’s evaluation. Almost all students indicated that they could build on the training of P&E skills in semester 1 in this course. They saw the importance of the course for their future career and indicated that they will use the tools in future projects and engineering practice. They are happy with the variation in the educational methods and the assignments in the afternoon helped them to understand the theory. Around 90 % agreed that the study load is realistic and more than 85% indicated that based on their previous education, the course was not too difficult.

Organization and teaching facilities

· This year the overall organization of the course was again excellent.

· The excursion to SAIC was again one of the highlights. It was organized very well. We were very happy with the flexibility of the SMU teachers who found an alternative for the visit to SAIC ROEWE and organized a visit to SAIC GM. A visit to a car factory, where students can see how the different parts of a car are assembled, fits very well in our course where we teach them the first principles of product design. Students were very positive and indicated that they got a better understanding of the profession of an engineer. Many thanks to the SMU teachers for making this possible.

· This year the support of the Chinese assistants during the course was excellent. Start up issues like problems with the cables of the beamers not working with our computers, were solved immediately and there was regular contact about any further needs or wishes.

Improvements and actions

· This year the cooperation between the EDM and PM part was again very good. We integrated further and improved for example this year the lesson about the set up and the phasing of projects.

· The SMU needs to have e-versions of all group reports, the scoring results of the reports, the results of the final test and the final marks. We have received all reports by e-mail and will collect them and transfer all the files to the SMU (done). Hard copies of the reports can be left with the students.

· This year we noticed that some students were absent without notice. This is not allowed and next year we should find a way to report this in time.

· It was asked whether the first year excursion can be organized to a different company like for example a steel company. A different company is fine, however we should not lose the fit with the course. So it should be a company where they produce products for which different parts need to be assembled. No process industry or a company producing only parts like a steel company. A port is not such a good example as there the logistic component is more prominent. A shipbuilding company is good too. Action: We will discuss the possibilities during the preparations for the 2017 course.

· For the group work in the afternoon there are now three classrooms available: one big one and two small rooms. If possible we would like to have two large rooms, as having the two assistants working together in one room increases the quality of the support and facilitates coordination.

· Next year we should encourage the students more to make notes during the classes. Writing notes, even in Chinese, in the reader, promotes active listening and understanding of the lectures.

· All improvement possibilities suggested in the 2014 evaluation were implemented resulting in a very good prepared course and fruitful cooperation between the HZ and SMU teachers.

Conclusion

All participants were very happy with the excellent cooperation. We will continue to strive for further improvements and look forward to delivering again a high quality and successful course next year.