You are on page 1of 4

HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Department of Computer Science and Engineering Department Meeting Minutes of the

43rd Department Meeting of the Department of Computer Science and Engineering held on 26 April, 1997 at 10:05 a.m. in Room 7332, Conference Room, 7/F, Phase I, Academic Complex, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Absent on leave: Absent with apologies: Dr. Helen C Shen Dr. Zhaoping Li Mr. Ricci Ieong Mr. Terry Lau Mr. Frank Luk Dr. David Rossiter Miss Mandy Chan (student representative, UGMiss Eva Chen (student representative, UG-Yr3) Mr. Cyril Kwok (student representative, UG-Yr3) Mr. Eric Hui (student representative, UG-Yr2) Mr. Dickson Tong (student representative, UGYr1) Mr. Peter Yang (student representative, UG-Yr1)

Yr3)

With the exception of the above, all faculty members of the Department attended the meeting. In addition, Dr. Matthew Yuen, Associate Dean of Engineering, and Miss Angela Yu (recorder) were also present.

1.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING 1.1. Minutes of the last meeting were approved as an accurate record.

2.

DISCUSSION OF TEACHING (QUALITY CONTROL PROCESS) 2.1. Background 2.1.1 The Chairman highlighted the background leading to this brainstorming session on teaching/learning issues. Subsequent to the formal release of the TLQPR report in early April, a special session was held by the Senate in which members exchanged their opinions on various issues

related to the teaching/learning quality of the University, and special attention was given to address issues brought up in the Report by the TLQPR panel. It was decided then that a number of follow-up sessions be held by the Senate with a view to formulate positive actions in response to the Report. Before the next special session is held, departments/schools are requested to convene special meetings to canvass opinions of their faculty in general so that constructive ideas can be gathered for further consideration by the Senate. 2.1.2. It was stressed that the purpose of the discussion is not to address the specific comments in the Report. The Report should be taken as a stimulus that leads to our self reflection on teaching performance - what we have done so far in teaching and what should be done to improve ourselves. It is not the intention of the UGC to intervene with our teaching by conducting this TLQPR exercise - we have full autonomy in our teaching responsibility. The UGC and the TLQPR visit were intended to help us setting up the framework for teaching/learning quality control assurance and to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

2.2. Discussion 2.2.1. The Chairman kicked off the discussion by sharing his thoughts on teaching with the faculty. He attempted to formulate his self-evaluation as a teacher by asking himself the following questions: teaching? How often have our TAs attended our lectures? How often have we met with our TAs to plan/discuss? How often have we and other section instructors met to plan/discuss? Have we gone over our student evaluation comments? Have we used them constructively? How often have we visited our tutorials/labs? Have we help our TAs if they are inexperienced in

Have we reviewed the A-Level syllabi when we teach entry-level course? Have we reviewed the syllabi of the prerequisites to courses?

our

Have we reviewed the courses to which our course is a prerequisite? Have we worked out the exam paper ourselves

beforehand? beforehand? feedback? before

Have we worked out the assignments ourselves

Have we approached students in our class and asked for

Have we visited our computer labs in the evening project due dates?

Have we given help sessions to those who are behind in addition to the three lectures? Have we mumbled to ourselves walking out from our "I should have prepared better?"

class,

2.2.2

While discussing the validity of the above questions, one member pointed out that although they were good questions for the faculty to ask themselves in evaluating their own teaching performance as individuals, they failed to address the major weakness in our teaching process as identified in the Report. The deficiency in the teaching of HKUST is seen as an absence of a structured, orderly and systematic approach to monitor the teaching programmes of its departments. Each department carries out its teaching responsibility in a different way, and there is no central coordination in the assurance of teaching quality.

4.

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

4.1 p.m.

There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:15

May 11, 1997 dm.m43 RTC/AY