A Sample of Minutes
Minutes of Department Meeting on 26 April 1997
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: Dr. Helen C Shen
Absent with apologies: Dr. Zhaoping Li
Mr. Ricci Ieong
Mr. Terry Lau
Mr. Frank Luk
Dr. David Rossiter
Miss Mandy Chan (student representative, UG-Yr3)
Miss 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)
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:
- 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 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 reviewed the A-Level syllabi when we teach
entry-level course?
- Have we reviewed the syllabi of the prerequisites to our
courses?
- Have we reviewed the courses to which our course is a
prerequisite?
- Have we worked out the exam paper ourselves beforehand?
- Have we worked out the assignments ourselves beforehand?
- Have we approached students in our class and asked for feedback?
- Have we visited our computer labs in the evening before
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 class,
"I should have prepared better?"
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 co-
ordination in the assurance of teaching quality.
4. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
4.1 There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
May 11, 1997
dm.m43
RTC/AY
