MODULE REVIEW FORM (MRF)

Faculty/School:	Science / Computing
Session:	2011-12
Module Title:	Analysing Games
Module Code:	COMP09014
Module Coordinator:	Dr John N Sutherland
Other staff involved in delivery:	Dr John N Sutherland, Dr Tom Hainey

Trimester 1	Trimester 2	Trimester 3 /Resit Diet	Overall
No. of Students Enrolled	12	38	14
No. of Staff Teaching on Module	1	2	0	2
% Pass Rate	66%	76%	29%	80%
Corresponding Pass Rate in Previous Session	-	94%	100%	100%
Mean Mark	47%	48%	7%	48%

Guidance Note

Module co-ordinators may choose to begin completion of MRFs following each diet to ensure that a qualitative evaluation is undertaken at a timely stage within the process. Thereafter, MRFs should be completed as soon as possible after the module runs for the last time in a session with a final submission deadline of 5 October 2012. Quantitative data provided later in the process may result in slight refinements nearer the submission deadline.

Module co-ordinators have responsibility for ensuring that the module moderator and the Subject Panel Chair are in agreement and comfortable with the content of the completed MRF.

Completed MRFs should be lodged on the UWS Staff Portal. Please forward an electronic copy to:

School of Computing MRFs	Morag Bratchie

School of Engineering MRFs	Claire Campbell

School of Science MRFs	Claire Campbell

PART 1 – ASSURANCE

Delivery & Attendance At Ayr there were 5 lectures then it gradually became over the term the students presenting their literature reviews and work in progress for comment and feedback. One student dropped out, and three failed to submit work of sufficient quality, At Paisley I was joined by Dr Hainey who kept an eye on the Games Tech students while I tried to watch the Games Dev students. We took the same approach as I had taken in Ayr, but some students decided not to engage.
Assessment (Co-ordinators comments) This all-or-nothing in one coursework proved to be a high hurdle for many. Next year we will more clearly split it into two pieces.
Assessment (Moderators comments)

PART 2 – EVALUATION AND ENHANCEMENT

Where appropriate, module co-ordinators should evaluate modules by taking full cognisance of external examiner comments, pass rates, making use of statistical data available to inform developmental changes and enhancement. Reflection on changes from previous years may also be useful.

Teaching & Learning Approaches It was partly lecture, partly small group tutorial, partly class discussions.
Assessment A single piece covering an assessment of an area relating to controversy in games.
Student Feedback The students who struggled at Ayr said it was hard to understand what was required of them. Many students had not written any discursive work in their entire time since arriving at UWS, so found it very challenging. It was well received by most.
Multi-campus delivery/Multi-mode delivery (CRNs) and Collaborative Delivery Both campuses went evry similarly overall.
Personal Development Planning Students gain good experience for their work to be done in the following year in the honours project and other honours level modules..
Virtual Learning Environment (Blackboard) Does the module have a Blackboard presence? (tick as appropriate) Yes □ No □ If yes, does the Blackboard module meet the minimum specification? (tick as appropriate) Yes □ No □ Where appropriate, comment on how you intend to extend the use of the VLE in the coming year and what obstacles may prevent you from doing so?
Action Jim Scullion will take over the module and teach it at Ayr in the next academic year. He will revisit the assessment and more clearly split it.
Additional Comments including any module amendments None.