You are on page 1of 9

RESULT ANALYSIS

COURSE TITLE: CREATIVITY IN ENGINEERING DESIGN I


CODE: ENGR 101
INSTRUCTOR: MOHAMED ALI S
SECTION: 2457
CREDIT HOURS: 2
TOTAL No. OF LECTURE HOURS: 27
SPRING SEMESTER: 2013-2014




Submitted to: The Dean, Faculty of Engineering
ISLAMIC UNIVERISITY
Al Madinah Al Munawwarh, KSA

Report Prepared by: MOHAMED ALI S
smohamedali@gmail.com



CONTENTS

Sl.No. TITLES PAGE
No.
1 ASSESMENT METHODOLOGY
2 NAME LIST AND FINAL GRADE
3 TABLE- RANKING OF STUDENTS
4 CHART -COMMUNICATION ABILITY
5 RANGE OF MARKS - HISTOGRAM
6 CURVED GRADES
7 GRADE COUNT
8 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTION


ASSESMENT METHODOLOGY

Assessment
Method
Quantity
Percentage
Contribution
to the total
Grade
Outcome
Exam
Pattern
ASSIGNMENT 6+1 22+10 = 32 TEAM WORK,
Open Book
and
Reference
Materials
QUIZ 6 18
CONCEPT
UNDERSTANDING
ABILITY
Closed
Book class
room exam
EXAM 3 15+15+20= 50
CONCEPT
UNDERSTANDING
AND
COMMUNICATION
ABILITY
Closed book
Public Exam

100
(Maximum)






NAME LIST AND FINAL GRADE

Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME % OF ATTD GRADE ALG
1

1 331001383 88.89 50 F
2 331001083 88.89 71 C
3 331008273 88.89 74 C
4 331004763 92.59 76 C+
5 331062843 85.19 55 F
6 331001973 88.89 51 F
7 331001223 85.19 56 F
8 331001853 88.89 71 C
11 331029873 70.37 67 D+
13 331001233 92.59 63 D
14 331001163 81.48 50 F
15 331001493 92.59 44 F
16 331001703 85.19 54 F
17 331001673 92.59 64 D
18 331001183 92.59 64 D
19 331015253 85.19 43 F
20 331001593 77.78 63 D
21 331001533 85.19 60 D
22 331066813 88.89 63 D


19

60 D
1
- Absolute Letter Grade

TABEL - RANKING OF STUDENTS

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
27
29 30 29 29 29
27
30 29 29
25
18
24
26
29
23
30 29 30
10
10
12
11
6 5
11
11
8 9
9
10
7
9
11
7
10
9 8
13
31
32 36
20
17
17
30
30
24
15
15
22
28
24
13
23
21
25
GRADE-COMPONENTS
ASSGN+QUIZ+EXAM
ASSN QUIZ EXAM
Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE Rank
4 331004763 76

1
2 331001083 71

2
11 331029873 67

3
8 331001853 71

4
3 331008273 74

5
17 331001673 64

6
22 331066813 63

7
20 331001593 63

8
13 331001233 63

9
16 331001703 54

10
18 331001183 64

11
6 331001973 51

12
21 331001533 60

13
7 331001223 56

14
5 331062843 55

15
15 331001493 44

16
14 331001163 50

17
1 331001383 50

18
19 331015253 43

19



Ranking is based on the communication ability as the employability of the student is mostly
decided by this criteria.
It is calculated by his achievement in the descriptive question he has answered in the three
exams, namely midterm 1 (MT1), midterm 2 (MT2) and final exam (FE). It consists of 50%
multiple choice questions and 50% descriptive type questions.
The total score is converted to percentage and the achievement of each student is shown in
the following charts.








CHART - COMMUNICATION ABILITY





Though the achievement in the exams MT1, MT2 and FE is almost same from the above
chart the ability in achieving through descriptive answers is very poor for some students

It was shown in the Ranking of the students and those were the students at the bottom end
of that table.


Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE Rank
7 331001223 56 14
5 331062843 55

15
15 331001493 44

16
14 331001163 50

17
1 331001383 50

18
19 331015253 43

19



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
20
27
34
31
25
17
20
27
26
25
23
21
23
26
27
22
20
24
21
6
35
29
40
13
18
14
33
33
22
7
9
20
29
20
3
24
17
29
MT1,MT2 & FE
MULTIPLE CHOICE DESCRIPTIVE ANSWERS
RANGE OF MARKS

40-45
Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE ALG
15 331001493 44 F
19 331015253 43 F


2 43.5

ALG Absolute Letter Grade
46-50
Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE ALG
1 331001383 50 F
14 331001163 50 F


2 50

51-55
Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE ALG
5 331062843 55 F
6 331001973 51 F
16 331001703 54 F


3 53.33333


56-60
Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE ALG
7 331001223 56 F
21 331001533 60 D


2 58

61-65
Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE ALG
13 331001233 63 D
17 331001673 64 D
18 331001183 64 D
20 331001593 63 D
22 331066813 63 D


5 63.4


66-70
Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE ALG
11 331029873 67 D+


1 67


71-75
Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE ALG
2 331001083 71 C
3 331008273

74 C
8 331001853 71 C


3 72


76-80
Sl_No UNIV_ID NAME GRADE ALG
4 331004763 76 C+


1 76



To make the average as 70 the existing marks has to be increased by 10

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
50 53 58 63 67 72 76
N
o
.

O
F


S
T
U
D
E
N
T
S

GRADE
HI STOGRAM
AVERAGE: 60
No. of Students
CURVED GRADES
GRADE COUNTS


COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

-THANKS

Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to learn and teach a new subject
in a new environment and in a new land.
- SYLLABUS

The syllabus of this course is designed and followed for the US system of education,
though we also followed the same, the important criteria to understand this voluminous
subject is understanding the lecture and expressing their views in English. It is observed in
the class room and during the project work phase that, though many students have their
innovative concepts they could not deliver or express their views in English. This comment is
substantiated by giving you a big picture of their ability to answer descriptive questions in
the examinations. We can see a large gap in the achieving marks in two patterns. (Refer
Page No. ?)
- NEEDS MODIFICATION

Though the course has a name creativity, the students have their firsthand
experience only through their project work. It is carried out only after the first midterm and
also it was not conducted as per the commitment we made, that each group would be
supervised by a faculty with respective to their project.
We need to stimulate students creativity thorough puzzles, which does not require
proficiency in English language but develop their creative skills. The problems proposed in
the following books are really interesting and creative and it may be consider for the future
revisions of this course.
1) Creative Techniques in Product and Engineering Design - A Practical
Workbook, D J Walker Lecturer, Design Discipline, Faculty of Technology, The Open
University, B K J Dagger, Industrial Consultant, Design and Manufacture, ( Formerly,
Project Manager - Training Development, EITB )
R Roy, Senior Lecturer, Design Discipline, Faculty of Technology, The Open
University, WOODHEAD PUBLISHING LIMITED
2) Make and Test Projects in Engineering Design- Creativity, Engagement and
Learning, Andrew Samuel, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006
3) PUZZLES IN THOUGHT AND LOGIC, c. R. WYLIE Jr. Department 0f
Mathematics, University 0f Utah, Dover Publications Inc., New York
4) Puzzles 101, A puzzlemasters Challenge, Nobuyuki Yoshigahara, A K Peters,
Natick, Massachusetts.

SUGGESTIONS

The course may be changed to three credit hours per week by considering the
language proficiency of the students and may be taught in relatively in a slower rate to
accommodate the mathematical and puzzle type problems.
The coordinator has put tremendous effort without considering whether it reaches
the student or not. It was totally in his control and I feel that other faculties potential were
not exploited and we were not given enough space. Especially preparing questions and
conducting examinations. I yet to understand whether he is underestimating our potential
or not relying on us. Though we went through many discussions during these four months
of course duration we or at-least I was kept at dark regarding the question pattern and
evaluation pattern till the day of exam. It puts me in a embarrassing situations in front of
students. The coordinator was so grateful to the author of the text book which we referred
for this course by insisting us to follow the same slides supplied by the author. The faculty
should be given full freedom in this activities.

The soft copies of these course materials and slides are available at

https://sites.google.com/site/aliatium/home


All these comments and suggestion are to improve the standard of this course in the
context of KSA education system and to maintain the integrity of the faculties who will be
teaching the course in future according to my observation.