7/31/2019 Needs-mom

1/4

Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering

Minutes of Staff/Student Committee Meeting with subsequent staff replies.

9th

November 2005

Present: Prof. John OReilly (Convenor), Dr. Jeremy Watling (Secretary), Prof.

Charlie Ironside, Ross Luescher, Alan Robinson, Gautam Agarwal and David Rankin

Apologies: Ross Feilen and Prof. Richard De La Rue

Convenors Business:

Prof. John OReilly welcomed everyone, especially the new members, to the

first staff/student meeting of this academic year and explained the important role it

plays within the department.

1st year:

No major problems in general in terms of the lectures. The only issue raised

was concerning the Tutorials forElectronics Engineering 1X. Prof. R. De La Rue notonly goes through the tutorial solutions with the students, but also hands out hard

copies of the solutions. Apparently, Dr. J. Williamson while going through his tutorialproblems in some detail does not handout hard copies of the solutions, which the

students find very useful for revision etc. The students therefore asked if it would be

possible for Dr. J. Williamson to handout hard copies of the solutions at some point in

the same style as Prof. R. De La Rue.

Reply from Dr. J. Williamson: As the students will by now have noticed, I doin fact, hand out tutorial solutions, and the first of these has already been circulated.

The only proviso is that I prefer to wait until feedback has indicated that sufficient

time has elapsed that most of the students have had a chance to attempt the tutorial.

This is normally several weeks after the tutorial has been circulated.

2nd

year:

Unfortunately no 2nd year representative was present.

3rd year:

Unfortunately no 3rd year representative was present.

4

th

year:One concern that was raised was the issue of timetabling clashes for 4th

yearoptions. Two particular clashes were raised, there is a timetabling clash between

Digital Communication 4 and VLSI Design 4, this particular clash was reported toaffect at least 6 people. A clash between Bioelectronics 4 andMicrowave, Electronic

and Optoelectronic Devices 4 was also reported this clash appears to have arisen forsome students as apparentlyMicrowave, Electronic and Optoelectronic Devices 4 was

originally time-tabled in the Green Handbook to take place in Semester 1, but is now

taking place in Semester 2. Prof. John O Reilly explained that with 11 4th year

options available, there were timetabling constraints. There was however some scopeto re-visit 4th year options in year 5.

Some students were also concerned that two courses had been dropped for thisyear:Electronic Circuit Design 4 and Control EE5, there was also some concern that

7/31/2019 Needs-mom

2/4

choosing 4th

year options again in the 5th

year, would mean that 5th

year would just

become a repeat of 4th

year. Prof. John O Reilly explained in some detail that a major

aim of the new structure for the 5th year was to give students an appreciation of the

broader view of Electrical Engineering and in no way was it meant to be a repeat of

4th year. He is also mentioned that the cancellation ofElectronic Circuit Design 4 was

due to an ongoing review of the 4th

year curriculum coinciding with the earlyretirement of Prof. J. Sewell.

It was felt that there was perhaps a little too much jumping around betweentopics, with no apparent coherent approach that the students could see in Control EE4

by Dr. Y. Li and that in some cases it was difficult to understand what the lecturer

was saying in the lectures. However, the printed lecture notes were excellent and the

students wished it to be known that on a personal level the lecturer was very

approachable and could explain issues.

Reply from Dr. Y. Li: Due to the reduction of Control 3 contents from 20 credits to 10

credits since last year, the lecturer had to fill in the background material on Nyquistcriterion from this year. However, since half of the class (students from Mechanical

Engineering Department) did Nyquist in their third year, this material had to bemainly to "fill in the background" and was hence delivered relatively fast.

It was discovered later that, as they did not take Instrumentation 3 in Mechanical

Engineering, students doing the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering joint degree

did not have any background on Bode plots (or on any frequency-domain analysis,

which is the foundation of three quarters of Control 4), the lecturer had then to fill in

this background as well and its delivery was relatively fast due to time limitations.

With some students' lack of background fully understood, it is felt that Bode and

Nyquist plots will have to become a mainstream part of Control 4 syllabus from thenext year onwards, although this means that the standards of this fourth-year course

will have to be more accommodating. The material will thus be delivered in a more

systematic manner and more slowly.

Being the Fourth Year Coordinator and Careers Contact for the Department, the

lecturer wished to enhance fourth-year student's real-world problem solving skills.

Therefore, the lecturer felt a need to challenge the students with real-world problems,

and not just to derive pure mathematical equations in the lectures. Hence the lecturer

did not mechanistically follow materials handed out, but also talked about physicalmeanings of control engineering mathematics and strongly encouraged students tothink beyond mathematical equations or nice academic boxes. This is to encourage

real analytical skills and is hence more challenging than just following pure

derivations, but will prove to be fruitful in students' careers.

There was also a question about how the marks from Professional Issues 4,would be accounted for. This course is a compulsory Computing Science requirement

and therefore affects all our Joint Honours students with Computing Science. Inprevious years the mark from this course had been taken as part of students Final Year

Individual Project Mark, but this year Computing Science have made this a standalone course with its own written examination 40% and course work 60%. The

7/31/2019 Needs-mom

3/4

students affected were therefore concerned about what would happen to the marks

this year, they had enquired within Computing Science and ECS coordinator Dr

Macauley, but they as yet have been unable to help.

Reply from Dr. M. Macauley:The two departments have agreed that joint honoursESE students (whether they are based in Science Faculty or Engineering Faculty)will have their overall 4th year mark or grade computed by taking a credit weighted

average of their marks or grades. This is what is currently done for single honoursElectronics and Electrical Engineering students, but not what is done for ESE

students or for single honours Computing Science students.

Professional Issues 4 will be a stand-alone 10 credit course, and the project

will be *weighted at 40 credits whether it done in Computing Science or in E&EE*i.e. joint honours ESE projects are rated differently from single honours Computing

Science projects, which have been changed this year to have 30 credits.

One small issue was raised about VLSI Design 4, in some cases it was difficultto read and understand the handwriting on the board of the lecturer for theAnalogue

partof this course. However, the students did comment that the lecturer concerneddid produce comprehensive hard copy of the notes at the beginning of each lecture.

No problems were reported for the Digital partof this course.

Reply from Dr. E.Wasige:I note the concerns raised by the students and will take thenecessary action. Just for your information, I often write in shorthand/unclearly just to

provoke some response if the class are not attentive, and this works! Also, studentsare advised to make notes in their own words during the lecture ... what I write on the

board is not meant to be copied blindly, and they know this.

Some students felt that the course Mathematics E4 was perhaps a little tootheoretical (pure) in its approach, rather than perhaps the more applied approach that

Engineering Students might prefer, and would have been used to from earlier year

Mathematics courses taught within our own department. Apparently no possible

applications for the mathematics they were learning had been explained too them.

Professor John OReilly did however point out that Mathematics E4 was an optional

course for the most mathematically able and it was to be expected that engineeringapplications might be at postgraduate level.

Reply from Dr. F. Goldman (Mathematics): It is an abstract course. I emphasise thisat the start and the syllabus indicates it. Part of the problem is that it is a mathematics

course, so the basics, which used to be taught much earlier, have to be put in place

before I can move on to infinite dimensions and Hilbert space.

I think the syllabus does need reform, because of the changes in what is taught in

engineering. However, as the syllabus originated with the engineering departments, it

needs reform in consultation with them, and though I have tried on several occasions

in the past, it has never come together.

7/31/2019 Needs-mom

4/4

It was felt that Team Project EE4 was a little disorganised this year, particularin terms of division and distribution of work. The students were most concerned about

the fact that they had only just received a formal set of specifications for the project,

while a formal report forTeam Project EE4 was due on the 2nd

December 2005.

Reply from Dr. D. Muir:The student is indeed confused. He is confusing the TeamManagement 4 (which is wanting an assignment in by Dec 2nd) with Team Project 4.Admittedly these run together this term and are to some extent interlocked. I have

tried (Team Project 4) to keep us out of the way of Management 4 as far as possible.

As far as specifications are concerned, Team management 4 I am sure will have dealt

with that very properly (that is their job!). As far as Team project 4 is concerned this

term the task for the teams is to COME UP WITH decent specifications which are

then to be built in the next term. The directions for the teams were indeed vague.

Researching, considering, planning, sketching all are part of this initial phase of the

team project. Ultimately, having acquired all the necessary background knowledge

the teams can arrive at a specification that is meaningful and attainable. It is part oftheir professional development for them to do so.

Given the high quality of the MEng students, to have given the teams complete and

constraining specifications would surely have insulted their abilities!

The last comment that was made concerned the apparent high non-technical

content of the MEng. Course which contained courses on Entrepreneurship,Professional Issues and Managerial skills and were these being introduced at the

expense of more technically orientated subjects. Profs. John OReilly and Charlie

Ironside explained that this was not the case and that the inclusion of such courses

was a requirement of IEE accreditation, which was vital for any successful electricalengineer. It was also explained that such professional skills were becoming more

important as increasing numbers of skilled engineers were taking on more senior

management roles in companies, which involved detailed knowledge not only of the

technical aspects of the company, but also the management (both personnel and

financial) of companies.