Achieving a good understanding of difficulties encountered by students in their course of studies contributes greatly towards an effective teaching-learning process. While module curriculum is closely related with teaching, little attention has been given to the evaluation of modules compared to the evaluation of teaching by students. The purpose of this study was to identify difficulties encountered by engineering students in the modules taught. Unlike the current practice of Student Evaluation of Module (SEM) at the University of Nottingham, whereby individual module SEM questionnaires are distributed, an alternative SEM questionnaire that comprises all the modules taught in the semester was developed. Students from different Schools of Engineering (Mechanical, Chemical and Environmental, Electrical and Electronics) were asked to rank the modules according to the level of difficulty in their respective programmes. The causes of difficulties, the way to overcome difficulties and to increase students’ interest in the modules were explored.

Considering all valid responses obtained from these engineering students, two to three modules were identified as difficult in each school. The majority of students found understanding theories and concepts to be the most difficult part in their learning process, followed by the application of theories and concepts; they also encountered difficulties in working on problem sets or assignment. Students identified more worked examples and further explanation in theories and concepts would help them overcome these difficulties. To increase students’ interest in the modules, multimedia illustration of difficult concepts gained the highest vote, followed by link to applications on industrial practice and visits to industrial sites. In terms of learning outcomes, the majority of students perceived that they have learned problem solving techniques, applications of theories and concepts and problem recognitions.

Compared to the existing SEM practice, more than three quarter of students responded positively that our SEM provided more feedback about the modules and facilities available. Besides achieving efficiency in terms of data collection and data analysis, a global analysis on all modules offered in each engineering school is accomplished. This allows not only a global view on major factors affected the shortcoming of a programme but also facilitates comparison among modules in the programme. With the convenience of extracting individual result analysis on each difficult module from our SEM, individual module related information can be obtained as a guideline for teaching-learning improvement as well as curriculum development purposes.

1. Centra, John (1993), Using Student Evaluations: Guideline and Benefits, Reflective Faculty Evaluation. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

2. Morrison, Toy (1995), Analyzing Qualitative Responses on Student Evaluations: An Efficient and Effective Method, HERDSA, Rockhampton.

3. Harvey, Lee (2001), Student Feedback, a Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

4. Brennan, J. et al. (2003), Collecting and Using Student Feedback on Quality and Standards of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, a Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

5. Szwelnik, A. (2005), Module Evaluation and Feedback. Research Report for Quality in Business Education, UK.