Preparing CS Honours students for a research career: the Wollongong experience

International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, Jul 2005 by Fulcher, John A, Piper, Ian C

* initial bibliography (10%)

* draft literature review (10%)

* initial methodology (10%)

* project presentation (10%)

* seminar reviews ( 10%)

* final submission (40%)

The latter comprises draft introduction, literature review, methodology chapter, bibliography and seminar presentation (recall that this occurs at the end of semester I; students have another semester in which to complete their individual Honours project - the written assessment tasks thus constitute the first few chapters of their final project report, due at the end of semester II).

Conclusions

So what have we learnt from restructuring CS Honours as described above?

1. Students develop, through the shared experience of the Honours seminar, a degree of collegiality not previously observed. This, we believe, is due to the fact that Honours students are able to see themselves as a distinct group within the structure of the school. Prior to the introduction of the Honours seminar the students had no shared common experience as both research projects and coursework did not lead to their participating as a distinct group except, by chance, where they happened to share a class. Even in this case, the Honours students were rarely the only participants, typically sharing the class with keen undergraduates and coursework post-graduate students.

2. The Honours coordinators, through their close involvement with the Honours seminar, gain a much better appreciation of the individual strengths and weaknesses and become involved with the conduct of the degree program and its participants to a much fuller extent than was previously the case. Prior to the introduction of this program the role of the coordinator was largely one of recording student subject choices and subsequent grades. Since the new program's introduction, the role has expanded to be more that of research mentor and ombudsman for the Honours students.

3. Students report that they actively enjoy their participation in the Honours seminar program and their assessment of this new initiative is uniformly positive. Anecdotal evidence derived from student comments and observed attitudinal changes in respect to the presentation of their material in a peer forum. Prior to the introduction of the Honours seminar program, student attitudes towards the presentation of the results of their research could be described, at best, as lacking enthusiasm. Now, peer presentation is regarded less as a chore or a necessary evil than as an opportunity to receive different, often highly valuable, opinion on their work and, even more importantly, suggestions for further investigation.

4. The implicit assumption that the academic supervisors of Honours students provide the necessary grounding in research methodology and the development of the appropriate attitude to and understanding of the research process may not be entirely valid and that, at the very least, the provision of a standardised, specifically targeted introduction to this area through the Honours seminar is of not inconsiderable benefit to the students.