Description

This questionnaire (http:///www.my3q.com/survey/365/andywtc/23325.phtml) is used to assess students’ aptitude by using 20 capability indicators on 3 different aspects: (1) one’s self-ability; (2) career intention; & (3) personal interest. Upon the completion of the questionnaire, each student will be evaluated and given an overall score representing his/ her aptitude. This score is very useful for the supervisors in matching the FYP topics with the students.

Example of Application

A total of 116 students (99 full-time students and 17 part-time students) have completed the online questionnaire. Three supervisors have participated in the FPY matching exercise. They were first invited to define the relationship between 8 suggested FYP components and 20 capability indicators via the FYP Component Questionnaire. The supervisors were then invited to propose FYP topics and identify the required FYP components and their weightings on all proposed projects via the FYP Identification Questionnaire. Based on the data from the questionnaire, a matching exercise was performed. An overall score of each student was generated by aligning his/ her capability in 3 different aspects (i.e., one’s self-ability, career intention, and personal interest) and the components of each FYP. Then, a ranked list of students (the higher the overall score the higher the ranking) was generated for each project so that the supervisors could select the most suitable student for the project.

Evaluation/ Comments

Two surveys were designed to collect feedback from the supervisors and students respectively on their use of this matching system. Three supervisors were invited to complete the “Quality of Student Learning Questionnaire” for assessing the quality of student learning per supervising effort spent. A total of 31 students (18 full-time students and 13 part-time students) were invited to complete the “Quality of Project Supervision Questionnaire” for assessing the quality of project supervision per learning effort spent.

The Quality of Student Learning Questionnaire has 3 parts. The first part asks the supervisors to evaluate their level of supervising effort spent in defining the project background, explaining the project objectives, identifying the assessment criteria of the project, responding to students’ questions, and providing timely feedback. The second part asks the supervisors to assess their students about the communication format used, the frequency of meetings per month, the level of effort spent on the project, the level of learning spent on the project and the project progress. The third part asks the supervisors to rate the matching of the project with students’ self-ability, career intention and personal interests. As for the Quality of Project Supervision Questionnaire, it has 3 parts, same as the Quality of Student Learning Questionnaire but it was filled out by the supervisors.

The data collected from the two Questionnaires show that the supervisors show a better perception of project background definition and objectives than the students. On the other hand, students showed a better perception of assessment criteria, response to students’ questions and feedback provision by their supervisors. In other words, students could clearly understand the assessment criteria of their projects, and easily seek help and feedback from their supervisors whenever they need. No perfect match was found between the supervisors and students. Students commented that it was more reliable to find a good match with the project by their career intention and personal interests rather than their supervisors. Meanwhile, students were doubtful about the results of the matching between their self-ability and the project.

In conclusion, data from the matching exercise show that students were motivated and stimulated to improve their FYP performance if the project was interesting to them and related to their career intention. It was also found that one’s self-ability was not the key factor in determining students’ FYP performance. If the supervisors want to improve the matching between their proposed FYP topics and students, students’ career intention and personal interests should be considered as two major factors. Data also suggest that one’s self-ability, usually being measured in numbers such as GPA, may not be effective to predict students’ FYP performance.