PL3250 (Sem 1, AY2015/16)

By: Grace
Module taken in Sem 1, AY2015/16
PL3250 – Human Performance

Lecturer: Dr Maria Kozhevnikov

Lecturer Review: Maria was friendly and helpful to questions in class, and would clarify our doubts. Tutorials were also good as she encourages us to participate actively in class by asking questions to prompt group discussion and getting people to come to the board to answer the questions. She also goes through questions from the quizzes so we can understand the concepts that were tested. Maria goes through lectures really fast, sometimes 80 slides in one lecture and she just speeds through them. The content is rather simple since most are a repeat of cognitive psychology. New concepts beyond that taught during cognitive psychology was useful and interesting, but those that are just repeating cog psych content are quite boring.

Module Review: Content was interesting but most of the content from the
first half of the semester is content from Cognitive
Psychology (PL3233) so it wasn’t that engaging. The more
engaging topics were topics like human-computer interfaces,
history of virtual reality, models of attention, and navigation.
——-
Quiz 1 – 25% – Week 5 (whatever has been taught)
Quiz 2 – 25% – Week 11 (whatever has been taught and not
tested yet)
Finals – 40% – Everything learnt
Class participation – 10%
——-
The 2 quizzes (50% in total) were all MCQs and I felt that this was a lack of effort on the lecturer’s part in coming up with more comprehensive questions that can test our knowledge and understanding of the course. For Quiz 2, there were so many typos in the questions and some questions were poorly set because the phrasing was unclear, and the 4 options to choose from could all be right answers since the question was broad.
For the finals, 50% of the paper was a repeat of the finals paper from the previous year’s finals as well. It was good in a way for students because we could just copy off our prepared scripts (it was open book and we could bring in anything) so those who tried the past year papers could score better than those who didn’t. The final was still interesting and made me think beyond just the concepts taught in class, but also to project into the future trends and the applications of what we have learnt.
Overall, I think the module could be more rigorous and show more effort in teaching on the lecture’s part. The content could be really interesting if she elaborated more and taught more advanced level syllabus instead of repeating so much of what was taught in cog psych. I just took cog psych the previous sem so although it was a revision, it was less engaging.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s