S283 Planetary Science and the Search for life

Last Friday, I paid the course fee for S283 Planetary Science and the Search for life, which means I have now formally enrolled. I have linked it to the S10 Certificate in Astronomy and Planetary Science qualification. It starts on Saturday 4th October.

On last Saturday morning I had a tutorial associated with Python 3 week. I had completed the Python 3 activity a few days earlier, so this was only of a limited interest to me, but I attended anyway. It was a bit disorganised, which surprised me really, because this particular tutor is usually very good. I think a combination of the timing (Saturday morning is never a great time) and the Python changes didn't help matters. This is the first year that SM123 has used Jupyter notebooks (Python v3), whereas previous presentations have used Trinkets (Python v2). There are a lot of similarities, but many differences, and several tutors have not updated their notes and PowerPoint slides, which means making adjustments as they go along. This tutor, on this occasion, seemed uncharacteristically a little underprepared.

On Sunday, my tutor posted the student names for the Python 3 peer review exercise. The student who has been allocated to review my program rarely engages with the rest of the cohort. I am expected to review the program of somebody who isn't significantly better at the 'cooperation' aspect of the module either. The anticipated outcome of this malarky is very much unknown at this stage, but I suspect the tutor will post further details about what to do if I'm met with non-compliance. 

The same tutor as the one allocating the names for the peer review exercise held a Python 3 skills tutorial on Monday. Only 3 other students attended, which is par for the course with these badly advertised events. I'm not entirely sure what they are for. I think they started off as some sort of pedagogic enrichment activity which has morphed into a 'I'm contracted to do it so I'd better get on and do it then' sessions. As with a lot of these initiatives, the senior academics who dreamt it up meant well, but it didn't quite turn out as they had hoped. I've attended all of them, and while none have been truly ghastly, some have definitely been better than others. Monday's effort was about average in the range. Python is definitely something that a lot of students struggle with, so the more tutorials the better really. Each tutor has a unique style and explains things in a slightly different way, so there is bound to be (at least) one that resonates and is useful to somebody. There is yet another Python 3 tutorial next Monday and I'm sure I'll be all Pythoned out by then.

TMA03 is marked and returned

TMA03 was marked and returned to me on Tuesday, which was a lot earlier than I expected. It took about a week from the cut-off date, which is very good going. I scored 95%, which is 1% more than the last two assignments, so I am moving in the right direction, albeit gradually. I thought this was going to be my worst TMA so far because the questions were not particularly appealing. This latest mark means that I have accumulated 24.57% towards my final module mark. There is just one more TMA to go - TMA04 - and then the online exam in June. The next TMA is worth potentially 13%, and the end of module exam is worth up to a whopping 61%. Then it's all over, until next October at least.

This week I started to get to grips the Python part of the course and dabbling with the Components of the Universe topic, which I started last week. Python 3 was really just leading up to a program to plot a decay curve for a radioactive isotope which I found relatively easy. I've read ahead a bit to Python 4 and it seemed difficult to get a handle on it at first because the computer programming material isn't very well written. Once I got going, I managed to complete it, but it was a bit challenging in places. That means I've finished all of the Python on the module now, so I can concentrate on the astronomy and planetary science, which are the last two concluding academic topics.

The tutorial on Python 3 by a normally good tutor was OK but a bit self-indulgent in places. It was useful, but it could have been even more useful still if it had focused a bit more on the course materials and not on just Python in general. Last Monday there was a faculty-wide tutorial on how to cope with your online exam. I must be honest and say it was a very long hour of two tutors saying not particularly very much, and I took it more as a box ticking exercise for the OU to cover themselves if students don't follow the correct procedures on the day and muff the exam for procedural reasons rather than academic ones. Not much applied to SM123, it was mostly aimed at examinations for level 2 and level 3 modules.

Registration for 25J modules opens

I had the last of the 'Topic 7 - Components of the Universe' tutorials last Sunday with a tutor who is normally one of the better ones. They were OK on this occasion but not quite up to their usually high standard. It was a 'deep dive' variant, so tutors are expected to go beyond the course material without overdoing it and it's a very difficult balancing act. This tutorial filled the gaps and clarified a few things left by the previous two on this subject, so it that respect it was very good.

I had a 'skills tutorial' on Tuesday, supposedly on 'advanced maths'. It wasn't very good, but it wasn't aimed at me really. There were only four people attending. I was one, and the tutor was another, making just two others. These tutorials are really poorly advertised. A tutor on a previous tutorial said that when originally planned this series was originally going to be called 'taking it further' but for some reason morphed into 'skills' probably for political or funding reasons. The pedagogy is lost on me really.

Wednesday was the day when registrations for next October opened. The cost of a 30-credit module has gone up to £1946 and a 60-credit module is now £3892. Modules can be taken 'standalone' or linked to a qualification. The obvious one for me would be S10 Certificate in astronomy and planetary science which requires both S284 Astronomy and S283 Planetary Science and the search for life. I can do this in two years and the order in which they are taken isn't important. 

An alternative qualification for me to consider would have been S20 Certificate in Physics which requires the new 60-credit module S227 Core Physics and SXPS288 Remote experiments in physics and space. This would also take me two years, but the order I take them would be more important because some of the experimental work is based on S227, so doing SXPS288 first would be a bit illogical. I'm not sure I would have wanted to do S227 in its first year of presentation anyway due to the possible teething problems.

If I'm looking in the long term for a higher qualification, then I will need to do at some point MST124 Essential Mathematics 1. It's only just beyond A level in terms of difficulty, but as it's about 45 years since I did A level Pure Maths, I've forgotten a lot of it. It's a prerequisite to other higher-level modules, so it's unavoidable really if I want to go further, but that's something to think about for the semi-distant future.

Topic 7 - Components of the universe

I managed to finish off the PowerPoint cloud chamber practical presentation review of another student in my cohort. I picked one at random after emailing my tutor to let them know that I was doing this and also reflected on the feedback given by the student who reviewed mine. After a few, probably unnecessary, finishing touches and tweaking, I uploaded TMA03 to the assessment area of the website on Wednesday. The Cut-off date is midday on Monday 17th March, so I managed it in plenty of time.

Today, I officially started Topic 7 - Components of the universe. This is the first of the 'astronomy' series of topics, and the last one derived from the S112 module. The tutorial I had last Saturday morning was from somebody I hadn't met before. They were very good. Clear, concise, and knew the topic very well. It was a good introduction to the Astronomy and Planetary science change of direction.

I had another tutorial on Wednesday evening, also on astronomy. This one was by a tutor I had before and didn't think that much of, and I thought exactly the same this time. I'm sure they know their stuff and might be really good at their day job, but for one reason or another, I just found them difficult to follow. It wasn't recorded, which was probably the best thing about it.

On a more positive note, the Level 2 core physics module is being updated for next year, and details were released on Wednesday. It's rather unimaginatively called S227 Core Physics, which replaces the somewhat more imaginatively titled S217 Physics: From Classical to Quantum. It's the only 60 credit physical science module that the OU offer, all the others are 30 credits.

Practical 2 is over - let's go into TMA03

The last day to wrap up Practical 2 - the cloud chamber - was yesterday. As I strongly suspected, not that many students engaged with this activity so in the early hours of this morning I emailed my tutor and asked if I could implement their contingency plan. This involved reviewing a presentation from one of the few students who had uploaded theirs but was actually meant for somebody else. With only hours to go before the tutor deadline, I received feedback on my own presentation, so I can reflect on that and add my response in the TMA. I really can't blame other people for not getting involved with this malarky, and the fact that only ten out of eighteen in my tutor group have uploaded their own presentation, let alone review another student's, speaks volumes really. 

I've had a few tutorials since last I typed. On Tuesday I had a tutorial on how to tackle TMA03 from one of the better tutors. As always, they gave 'no nonsense' sound advice about what was required. All tutors differ though, and what is 'right' for this tutor might be very wrong for the one who actually marks my work.

On Thursday, I had a tutorial by an OU stalwart who, to be honest, had probably seen better days. They appeared to be using someone else’s slides, which is never good, and also got a bit lost towards the end, and started not to make much sense. The tutor admitted this as much themself, so it’s not an overly harsh criticism. Particle physics is not easy, and lots of students and teachers alike struggle with it, so it's fair enough.

Last Saturday, I had the tutorial that was postponed from exactly a week previously. It was scheduled to last for two hours, but the tutor managed to knock it off in a mere one and a half. According to LinkedIn, this tutor had worked at the OU for 52 years, so almost from its very beginnings in 1973. (The OU admitted their first students in 1971). This was another tutorial on particle physics, which is the topic that we are all on at the moment, if we follow the study calendar. It's difficult to judge, but I would have to say that this one was slightly better than the Thursday version on the same subject. The tutor went off on tangents in places, and again appeared to be using someone else's slides, but I think it just had the edge. There was a bit of a 'Joyce Grenfell' vibe to the whole proceedings, especially at the start, but it seemed just slightly more coherent.

On Monday I had another (the second of two) tutorials on TMA03 planning by my own tutor, the one who marks my assignments. They seemed to think that screenshots of electron orbitals were acceptable, but according to other tutors, and hinted at in the module materials, they are not really. Conflicting opinions on how to tackle assignments is always a bad thing to have to think about, but there was some good news. The tutor expressed a very positive preference for using Excel to plot the decay curve graph, which means that I can use the graph that I've already produced without having to redo it by hand.  

 

There weren't that many attendees, but these tutorials can get a bit heated at times. One old duffer claimed that he couldn't find the assignment question and/or the part in the teaching materials that the question referred to. The tutor did their best to direct them without losing their rag, and more or less managed it, but another student had to step in and mediate. You could tell that both were starting to lose their patience as it went on for a lot longer than it should have done. It was touch and go at times. It reminded me of the very old Hale and Pace gag. "I don't like conflicts - in fact I don't like any breakfast cereals".

At lunchtime on Tuesday - always a bad time for a tutorial - I had the third of three on how to tackle TMA03. I could tell by the number and type of questions asked that this assignment causing a few problems for other students. It wasn't helped by the conflicting advice or information that the three different tutors gave for the questions on the TMA. This one said absolutely no screenshots of electron orbitals, freehand sketches only. The first said freehand sketches or computer graphics package but not screenshots. Tutor number two said screenshots are OK, hinting in places at a preference for them over any other method.

Similarly, for the radioactive decay graph, there was a 'hand drawn only', a 'hand drawn but Excel if you really must' and an 'Excel preferred but hand drawn acceptable' difference of opinion. The number of slides required for the PowerPoint presentation was also a bit ambiguous. Between 6 and 10 seemed to be the nearest we ever got to a consensus, but it was far from definitive. Tutorials are really designed to make things clearer not more confusing so I'm beginning to doubt their worth really.

On Wednesday I had the last of the particle physics tutorials. This one was a deep dive and facilitated by one of the better tutors, an OU staffer. It definitely went into the topic in depth, so it did what it said on the tin. There were no attention seeking idiots at this tutorial, which made for a much better experience.

On Thursday I had a 'skills' tutorial on 'Using radioactive decay as a dating technique' with the same tutor that I had yesterday for the particle physics, and there was a lot of overlap in the two subject areas. This was a tutorial in two halves really. The first part was practicing half-life calculations, which is a very useful skill. The second half lost its focus a little bit and drifted into luminescence and dating the age of pottery, which was a personal interest of the tutor but not particularly relevant to the course. It was an hour well spent though, and I can say that I've had a lot worse evenings. A lot worse. No really, I have.

S284 Astronomy

I made a few tentative enquiries about S284 Astronomy for next year 25J. They used to offer a Headstart and a Boot camp option but enquired to see if they still do. According to the qualification lead, the Boot camp might be offered next year but the Headstart will not. That's a bit of a shame really because I was looking forward to that. If I do it anyway, I can put it towards S10 Certificate in Astronomy and Planetary Science that I have had my eye on for a while now.

I finished the PowerPoint presentation on the cloud chamber and uploaded it to the area of the module website where these things are exchanged. To date, there were only 4 other people who have bothered to do it, and the closing date is next Friday the 7th March. Some students never engaged with the first practical and some on the list I have never heard of. It looks like my presentation will be reviewed by a student who engages with the module quite a bit, but I'm expected to review the presentation of a student who is totally new to me. I've never seen their name mentioned at all anywhere. By this time next week it will be all over as far as I can tell.

I don't think my presentation is particularly good, but half of the marks are given for stating how you would improve it after you have reflected on the feedback received from the reviewer. That's fair enough, so there is everything to play for.

I managed to do the freehand sketches of the hydrogen orbitals using Microsoft Paint and I think that is just about acceptable under the rules, but the Barium-137 decay graph is a bit dodgy. I've plotted it using Excel but the TMA strongly hints at a hand-drawn effort. A lot will depend on what my tutor - the one who will be marking it - says at the tutorial on Monday. If I'm still in doubt after all that, I will just ask them by email. I must say that TMA03 has been my least favourite assessment so far and it's the one that I think I will get the lowest mark in.

Interestingly, the SM123 exam (online - 3 hours) is exactly 100 days away today.

Week 19 - The week with no name

This week I was heavily involved with the cloud chamber practical presentation. The tutorial to support this activity wasn't as informative as it could have been. It was just my tutor reading from slides that had already been made available in advance. There were only five other students attending out of potentially 20 (realistically 18 due to withdrawals) bods still remaining in the tutor group. I've already finished my PowerPoint slides and have made a good start on the accompanying script. When it's finished I need to upload it to something called 'OpenStudio' which is an area on the module website where results and observations from experiments are stored for personal use and/or shared with group members when collaborating.

I've looked ahead a bit to Topic 6 which is called Nuclei and Particles. There is a TMA question on this which involves plotting a radioactive decay graph by hand without the use of Excel or another graph drawing package. This doesn't appear to make a lot of sense, but then again maybe they are testing for something here that's not immediately obvious.

Topic 6 is the first topic in the module that was not written primarily for S112 and then adapted for use with SM123. There are only three unique topics in total if you exclude the Python weeks. The others are Topic 7 is Components of the Universe, Topic 8 Exploring the Solar System and Topic 9 How the Universe works. This is the part of the course that I have been looking forward to the most because astronomy (T7), planetary science (T8), and cosmology (T9) are not subjects I have ever studied before.

I've got the deadline for TMA03 in my sights now. It's 17th March. Not sure the freehand drawings of electron orbitals are a vote winner though.

[EDIT]

I was supposed to have a 2 hour tutorial tonight but it didn't happen. I think the tutor is on long term sick leave. I sympathise, and hope they get well soon, but the communications from the OU are absolutely appalling.  It's not the first time something like this has happened either.

[Further EDIT]

The tutor emailed me (and others no doubt) to say that they were experiencing pain due to a suspected appendicitis and hoped to reschedule the tutorial another time. 

Cloud Chamber Practical

Today is the start of the second of the two designated practical weeks. The first week was on weather station data and happened in week 3 of the module, around mid-October. This practical involves evaluating background radiation tracks using a cloud chamber. A number of video recordings have been made available through the course materials and having watched them, the method used and the results obtained are conveyed to another student using a scripted PowerPoint presentation which is then commented on. Similarly, each student is expected to 'peer review' somebody else's efforts.

Last week my tutor emailed all of us and gave us the student allocations. It was basically a table of names which indicated which student will be expected to review the efforts of which other student. There is also a tutorial planned for Tuesday 18th February which will hopefully explain a bit more about the entire procedure. Also, I now know that the cut-off date for this practical activity is Friday 7th March. 

I can imagine a lot of people not bothering with this activity due to the 'working with others' aspect, not to mention the time constraints. It is worth 40% of the TMA, and the TMA is worth 13% of the total module mark (i.e. 5.2% overall), so there are many marks up for grabs. Rather worryingly, a few days after the initial email, my tutor followed it up with 'what to do if nobody peer reviews your presentation' guidance. This sounds more than a bit ominous. 

As an aside, I received another communication from the OU. This was entitled "Checking in on your study experience: We'd like to hear from you!". It just appeared to be a more comprehensive version of the "Your mid-module check in" email that I got a few days ago. I was honest and said that the tutorials were a bit disorganised but other than that, everything was going OK.

Nuffield Physics

Topic 5 of the module is called Energy in Society. Having looked at the teaching material and had some tutorials on the subject, I can't help thinking it's a bit like A level Nuffield Physics, or even GCSE for that matter. It's divided into three parts. Part 1 is about energy resources; fossil fuels, nuclear energy and renewable energy sources. Part 2 is about domestic energy; the importance of insulation and the heat losses in domestic situations, such as poorly lagged hot water tanks, cavity walls and the principles of central heating radiators. Part 3 is about energy in transport, such as air resistance, breaking and friction.

It is, as it goes, taken from the physics components of S112 Science: Concepts and Practice, which is a module for students who are not following a physics/astronomy pathway through their qualification, and therefore are expected to have very little interest in it. With that in mind, it's hardly surprising it has 'Nuffield' stamped all over it. I'll be happy when this topic of the module is over, because it really does bring back bad memories of the past.

Although Part 2 is the least interesting part of the topic, there's a TMA question on this, so it's important to take it seriously. The question consists of three components. The first is about calculating heat losses due to radiation of an unlagged hot water tank. The second is about the effect of lagging the tank, and the third is about how much lagging contributes to the reduction of carbon emissions. Very modern.

Are we OK?

I got this email from the OU today. While it seems like a good thing they are doing at first glance, I can't help thinking that it is a bit concerning as well. Either it is unnecessary and the OU are just virtue signalling, or else the students enrolling are really not up to it. Reading the online reviews on the OU, it is generally considered that the quality of 'student support' has taken a bit of a nosedive in recent years, mostly due to the cuts in funding but also in part due to staff morale. I'm a bit undecided really. 

One thing which will support me with my studies is a better laptop, so I splashed out and bought a second hand Geobook Infinity 540 from eBay. I got it for less than £100. I had to give it a bit of a refurbishment to get it up to scratch but I'm there now I think. It has a 15.1in screen, which is a vast improvement on the 12½in I have at present, and came with 8GB of RAM and 256GB disk drive installed. I upgraded this to 24 GB of RAM, and 576 GB drive storage. I also reinstalled Windows 11, which was corrupted when I got it, and changed the dodgy network card driver because the Wi-Fi kept cutting out. A charger with a longer and more flexible power lead helped as well. The Intel quad core with hyperthreading i5-10210U CPU just makes things feel generally snappier than before. I'm pleased with this purchase because I've improved things without spending a fortune.

More tutorial woes

I had a few more tutorials last week. Two on programming (coding) and two on what can be described as 'modern physics'.

The first Python tutorial was delivered by somebody who was using part of somebody else's slide deck. They appeared to have a very good knowledge of the Python language, but seemed a little unfamiliar with the Python content of the SM123 module. Part way through the tutorial, with one eye on the time constraints no doubt, the tutor asked students to stop asking questions because they were slowing down and interrupting the flow of the session. This might sound a bit harsh, but it was well justified in this particular case. Towards the end of the tutorial the tutor deviated from the course materials and became a bit self-indulgent by talking about the role of Python in their own day job. It was all very interesting and entertaining stuff, but I'm not sure it helped anybody understand what they needed to know to successfully tackle the coding component of the module.

The first modern physics tutorial was delivered by an OU staffer rather than an associate lecturer with a non-OU day job and the difference in quality was notable. It was a really difficult subject to put across and it was done really well. It wasn't helped by a poor bandwidth connection, a bad cough and a baby crying in the background. However that's not the fault of the tutor, it's a consequence of the OU having moved to 'online' from traditional to 'face-to-face' tutorials. This tutor overran the session by a good 50 minutes because students were asking questions. This was fair enough, as they appeared to enjoy answering the questions that the students were putting to them.

The other skills tutorial on Python took place mid-week and was facilitated by my own tutor, the one who marks my assignments. They are at the 'no nonsense' end of the spectrum, and adopt a 'hard but fair' approach, which suits me just fine. On this occasion though they were just grumpy, bordering on rude in places. The scene was set at the start when it was announced that it would probably be 15 minutes shorter than advertised. Questions were tolerated rather than welcomed and at one point a normally talkative student was firmly put in their place. It was clear that the tutor appeared to be taking this session under some sort of duress. It was embarrassing to listen to in places to be honest. Fortunately, the number of attendees rarely went above 5 and never reached double figures at all.

The poorly advertised skills tutorial called ‘Quantum workshop’ was supposed take place on Saturday evening but it didn’t happen. Lots of people were wondering what had gone wrong and were posting about it on the SM123 forum. There was no announcement from the OU at the time, but a few days afterwards the tutor made contact and rescheduled it for the following Friday. It did indeed take place, and was reasonably well attended considering the confusion with the timing. The tutor knew their stuff and also knew the SM123 syllabus quite well. Some students wanted a more 'in depth' treatment of the subject but the tutor was very good at reigning them in while at the same time appearing to give them what they wanted. That's a very rare skill.

TMA02 returns and looking forward

TMA02 was marked and returned yesterday. I scored 94%, which is exactly the same as I got for TMA01, so at least I'm consistent. I lost a few marks on the 'baked bean tin sliding down a chopping board' practical write up, but I'm OK with that because I've got it out of the way. A couple of comments by the marker were just nit-picking I think, but I'm happy with the outcome overall. 94% is not to be sniffed at. Interestingly, it means that I have now contributed 12.22% towards the module result. 

This is a significant point in the module for obvious reasons. I am indeed at the half way stage now. I can't help thinking that the best is yet to come. The first few topics of the module are taken from S112 which is just A level revision really, but the last three topics are Astronomy, Cosmology and Planetary Science. These are all new subjects to me and I'm looking forward to doing them.

The end of module exam, called iCME81 in OU parlance, is the type of remote exam that some modules now have. These started during the so-called 'pandemic' and have been kept up even though social distancing restrictions were lifted a long time ago. Some modules have an End of Module Assessment (EMA) - similar to an extended essay or possibly a mini-project - instead of an exam. Opinion is divided over which type of assessment is easier. Many level 1 modules have neither, and are assessed entirely on coursework. The coursework is usually a number of Tutor Marked Assignments (TMA) spread over semi-regular intervals during the module.

I've known for a while now that the end of module exam is on 9th June but this has been the first indication of when the results are expected. Previous experience tells me that these dates are usually 'worse case', and realistically module results are announced a couple of days before. Level 1 courses are usually much easier to assess than levels 2 and 3 and so delays are relatively rare.

New year tutorial news

I've had a couple of tutorials over the first few days of 2025 and while neither were terrible, both were a bit disappointing. A previously 'good' tutor spent too much time being jokey and personable and then ran out of time so had to rush the last 15 minutes. It was towards the end of the session that the more important and difficult material was due to be covered. In fairness, the tutor apologized and the session was recorded with the PowerPoint slides made available for download, but I'm not sure if it saved the day.

The other tutorial was similar in some ways but different in others. Using somebody else's slide deck is always a red flag because it usually means that the tutor is not totally familiar with, and fully understands, the material being delivered. In my opinion this was indeed the case. The tutor admitted they wouldn't be covering the last section of the topic at all, and the parts that were considered came across as a bit confused. It's a difficult subject admittedly, but I was hoping for a better explanation of the topic material than either of the two attempts so far.

One of the biggest problems seems to be that of pace. Too slow at the beginning of the tutorial, when the simpler concepts are being looked at, and rushed at the end when the more complex content is examined, if indeed it is covered at all. It didn't help that a couple of students asked a few strange questions which gave me the impression they were seeing something that wasn't really there. By doing so, it just robbed the tutor of valuable explanation time.

[EDIT]

Within hours of posting the above I received this invitation to a tutorial. The email was sent at 09:40 and the tutorial was due to start at 10:00 i.e. 20 minutes notice. Unsurprisingly, only 2 people attended. In fairness to all concerned, the tutor did apologise and the tutorial was recorded for later viewing by the attendees and others but even so, it's not what I would call 'best practice'. It was one of the better tutorials delivered by one of the better tutors, so that sort of made up for it.

TMA02 has gone ... so now let's start TMA03!

I sent off TMA02 a few days ago, even though the cut-off date isn't until Monday 13th. This is a good thing because I will just keep tinkering with it otherwise, and that doesn't necessarily gain more marks. It just causes anxiety and wastes time that could be spent on other things, such as tackling TMA03.

TMA03 follows a similar format to the previous assignments and is comprised of several questions on various parts of the course, but is slightly biased towards the practical work. It is worth 13% of the total mark for the entire course which is the same as TMA01 and TMA02 combined. 

Question 1 (20%) involves authoring some PowerPoint slides and writing a script to go with them. The activity in question is the presentation of the results of a virtual ‘cloud chamber’ practical.

Question 2 (20%) is also about the cloud chamber practical and takes the form of a peer review of another student’s PowerPoint slides and their written script.

Question 3 (16%) This involves freehand drawing of atomic orbitals of hydrogen and is connected with Topic 4 - The quantum realm. The freehand drawing malarky is not very popular with the other punters who prefer something a little more sciencey and less arty. I don't blame them.

Question 4 (16%) This is more mathematical than most TMA questions and relates to Topic 5 - ‘Energy in society’ calculations, involving the heat losses in a domestic hot water tank.

Question 5 (16%) is another mathematical one. This is on radioactive decay and half-life calculations. It is quite a common type of radioactivity question and is connected with Topic 6 - Nuclei and particles.

Question 6 (12%) is the obligatory skills audit question. There’s one on all four of the TMAs. It involves posting a few ‘radar diagrams’ showing the various skills acquired and developed during the progress of the course, followed by a few words of reflection. It’s easy marks if it’s taken (at least) semi-seriously.

Back after the Christmas/New year Break

Although today is the start of OU teaching week 11, my next tutorial isn't until next Saturday morning at 11.00am. This week I'll be putting the finishing touches on TMA02. I'll be glad to get it out of the way to be honest. I've felt that the 'baked bean tin (tuna in my case) sliding down a chopping board' practical has been hanging around for too long now.

Fire and Rehire

I don't want to get too political, because it's not that sort of blog, but this is not good news for anybody. It's hardly surprising that the tutorials are a bit "hit and miss" quality-wise when this stuff is going on in the background.

I'm not sure what good it will do, but I've written to my MP to complain about the OU employment policies and procedures.

[EDIT]

I received this reply on 15th January.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your correspondence of 23 December, on behalf of your constituent, Mr John Hunt of [REDACTED], regarding his concerns around plans to fire and rehire staff at the Open University (OU).

I recognise the concerns of providers and their staff regarding the ongoing financial stability of their institutions, and am aware that some providers, including the OU, are making difficult decisions around staffing to safeguard their financial sustainability.

Higher education (HE) providers are responsible for the pay and provision of staff. The government does not have a role in intervening with specific providers or in resolving disputes between providers and their staff. However, we expect providers to work with staff, using their knowledge and experience to help identify how best to reduce unnecessary spend. Efficiency measures taken by the sector should provide better long-term value both for students and the country.

We are committed to working closely with the sector to find practical ways to address the challenges faced and deliver the change that the sector, students and the country needs. Sir David Behan has been appointed as the interim Office for Students (OfS) Chair to oversee the important work of refocussing the OfS’ role to concentrate on key priorities, including the HE sector’s financial stability.

I want to assure Mr Hunt that the government is committed to creating a secure future for our world-leading HE sector - one that benefits students, taxpayers, workers, and the economy. We are reviewing options to deliver a more robust HE sector and will set out a long-term plan for reform by the summer.

Department officials are also working closely with officials at the Department for Business and Trade on the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill. As Mr Hunt notes, this includes ending fire and rehire tactics, as well as introducing basic rights from day one of employment, such as parental leave and protection against unfair dismissal.

Thank you again for writing. I hope that this response is useful for Mr Hunt.

Yours sincerely,

The Rt Hon Baroness Jacqui Smith

Minister for Skills

Progress so far - Christmas & New Year Break

As I go into the two week Christmas/New Year break, it's time to reflect on last week's activities, which according to the study calendar, was Week 11 out of 32. For this module, teaching/learning stops at Week 29, with the last 3 weeks set aside for completing the final TMA and end of module exam revision. As you can see I am 42% of the way into the course now, at least in terms of the consumption of content.

Over the last few days I have had five tutorials, and it's fair to say that some were better than others

One evening, I had a tutorial which was truly dire. Lots of long pauses, with underprepared, unrehearsed delivery. Poor slides, which appeared to have been prepared for a different purpose, confusing explanations, and off-topic ramblings. It was really really bad. I felt sorry for the 9 other people that had to go through that. It wasn't just the worst OU tutorial I have ever had, but the worst ever in my 55 or so years of education.

There was a non-recorded tutorial on how to tackle TMA02 by one of the better tutors which was a bit of a disappointment really. Too long was spent on the Python question and not much of interest said about anything else. I found parts of the rest confusing in places, but having said that, I changed the graph in one of my TMA questions as a result of the new information. The trendline is now thinner and the plot points are now vertical and horizonal crosses not dots. I think on balance it looks a lot better.

I had another tutorial from a tutor who clearly knew a lot about science education and was an excellent communicator, but I was left with the impression that they didn’t actually know that much about the OU module they was teaching on. Encouraging students to not use gridlines for graphs where values needed to be read, and not knowing that Trinkets had been discontinued from the module, were real howlers. They also appeared to be using somebody else’s outdated PowerPoint slide deck and didn’t really know what it contained because some of the content took them by surprise. I don’t think they had much interest in being an OU tutor, but just did the job because they had overstretched themselves on the mortgage and needed the extra income. Having said that, the presentation of the tutorial was handled very professionally, it was just aspects of the content which were not great. 

There was another tutorial in the middle of the week with a tutor I have had before and liked. The worst part was the timing really. 10.00 am isn't for everyone and it wasn't being recorded so anybody at work or with other daytime responsibilities would have missed out entirely. SM123 borrows quite a bit from S112, especially the early part of the course, and I feel that the chemistry/materials science component is being used as a filler rather than as an enhancement to the physics and astronomy material. The tutor did their best to make it as interesting and relevant as possible though, and it was well worth attending.

On Thursday evening I was supposed to have a 'deep dive' tutorial on 'Material Worlds' but the tutor didn't turn up. A staff tutor posted on the forum a few days afterwards that the tutor had been taken ill, and gave a link to a previous tutorial given by another member of staff.

There are also tutorial clashes as you can see above, which I am assured is being looked into.

Institute of Physics

I've just joined the Institute of Physics as an Associate Member. It's only £15 a year, and for that I can't realistically expect a membership card, a diary and a copy of Physics World posted every month, but for such a small price, I think it's worth it. I used to be an affiliate member a few years ago but let it lapse. That grade of membership no longer exists so associateship is the nearest. 

A degree from the OU is accredited by the Institute provided it is an honours degree and complies with the requirements detailed below. The BSc(Hons) Physics (qualification code R51) automatically meets these requirements.

Compulsory: All of the following:

S217 Physics: from classical to quantum (Soon to be replaced by S227 Core physics)

MST224 Mathematical methods

SXPS288 Remote experiments in physics and space

SM358 The quantum world (Replaced by SM380 Quantum physics)

SMT359 Electromagnetism (Replaced by SM381 Electromagnetism)

SXP390 Science project course: radiation and matter

Optional choice: One of the following: 

S382 Astrophysics (Replaced by S384 Astrophysics of stars and exoplanets)

S383 The relativistic Universe (Replaced by S385 Cosmology and the distant universe)

MS327 Deterministic and stochastic dynamics  

MST326 Mathematical methods and fluid mechanics

Tutors and tutorials (and more tutors and more tutorials)

Maybe I'm a bit obsessed, but as far as I'm concerned, the tutorial issues continue. A 'topic based' tutorial was cancelled recently as one of the module tutors had lost their voice due to having a bad cold. I don’t think it’s going to be rearranged, so it will probably never happen.

A few days later, I had a tutorial delivered by a very enthusiastic lecturer on ‘material worlds’, which is really just a fancy name for chemistry, or at a stretch, materials science. The breakout room thingy didn’t work that well, which may have been due to an upgrade of the Adobe Connect software that happened literally only a few hours previously. It caught the tutor unaware, and I emailed them afterwards to say how much I enjoyed the session and how well they handled the technical issues.

A couple of days after that, I had another tutorial from somebody who gave me every impression that they would much rather be somewhere/anywhere else. It was cut short and there were constant references to ‘viewing the recording’ when it was clearly not being recorded and was even advertised in advance as such.

On a Tuesday evening, I had a ‘deep-dive’ tutorial on Energy calculations. I fell asleep during it, but that was in no way whatsoever a reflection on the quality of the session. I was just very tired due to the events of the day. I watched the recording afterwards and it was very interesting, and I learnt a lot. This tutor was one of the better ones.

A few days ago, the OU sent me an email inviting me to a Science faculty based TMA writing workshop thingy. I logged on at 6.00pm on Wednesday as I was told, only to discover it just involved staring at a blue captioned screen for 2 hours. There was no audio, just silence and a few people typing into the chatbox. It was a totally crackpot idea, but they must be seriously desperate if they are coming up with this sort of thing if they think it helps with student success.

I had a Python tutorial on Thursday evening by one of the better tutors which was way above the level needed for TMA02/Python 1 and I think some of the audience were confused no end, but others really positively engaged with it. This tutorial clashed with a poorly advertised ‘skills tutorial’ on the ethical use of Gen AI which never took place, without any explanation as to why this was so.

I had quite a useful tutorial on how to tackle TMA02 at the somewhat inconvenient time of 9.00am on a Saturday morning. The tutor was very good, and I suspect leaned towards the tradiola end of the touchy-feely/reflective learning spectrum of approaches to education. The tutorial started very well but lost its way in the middle with this breakout room malarky which seems to be becoming a fashionable trend. The last third of the session seemed a bit rushed and, in my opinion, some key points were glossed over.

The quality of the Associate Lecturers and the usefulness of the tutorials on this module is definitely variable to say the least, but in fairness the same could be said for most traditional 'brick' universities. It is, however, very much of a lottery.

And then there was one

A 'skills' tutorial entitled Excel Basics, which was postponed a few weeks ago, was re-scheduled for last Saturday morning. Numbers are usually fairly low for these, but this one reached a new all-time low of one student. Yes, that right - I was the only attendee out of a potential cohort of 670. Fortunately it was recorded, so other students can at least get access to what I personally found to be very useful information at a later date. As it goes, the tutor was very good and ran the session really well, despite struggling with a cold and only having one person to talk to.

How am I doing all this?

I'm doing this entire online module using a lockdown laptop, the Geobook 2E. These were supplied to school and college students during lockdown for 'remote tuition'. Apparently, too many were manufactured, and the surplus units sold off relatively cheaply. I picked up mine for £99 from Amazon, which was a good deal. The specs aren't great, but are just about adequate for light undemanding tasks. It has a 12½in display, 4GB RAM, 64GB disk space (with another 64GB file storage using an optional microSD card), three USB3 ports, a mini-HDMI port and an Intel N3450 CPU. The almost obligatory Bluetooth, WiFi, webcam with microphone and (poor) speakers completes the package. It came with Windows10S Education installed but I managed to upgrade it to Windows 11 Pro after a bit of fiddling with the registry. I get Office365 with Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, OneNote, Skype, Outlook, etc and 1Tb cloud storage using OneDrive through the OU. 

From time to time, like all underpowered computers, it runs a little slow, and a Windows reinstall helps speed things up a tad. I had a bit of a quiet period with the module recently, so I took the opportunity to sort it out. I also set up a backup routine that automatically copies my assignment files once a day to the SD card and copies the whole course files once a week to the cloud storage.

Making a start on TMA02

As I’ve mentioned before, the TMAs on this course are very 'bitty' and this continues with TMA02, which has a cut-off date of 13^th January, so lots of time to go. Like TMA01, it consists of five questions, and I outline them below.

Question 1 is the Python question in two parts. The first part involves explaining what each line of a provided simple program does, and the second part involves modifying that program to improve it.

Question 2 is the writing up of the ‘baked bean tin sliding down a chopping board’ practical. It’s really a standard A level type practical write up, possibly even high-end GCGE. There’s a bit of trigonometry involved but it’s all very well explained in the course materials.

Question 3 involves calculating potential and kinetic energies of planets orbiting the sun. The information required is taken from a provided data table and it asks for an explanation of the steps needed to perform the calculation.

Question 4 requires the plotting of a graph showing the relationship between the electrical conductivity of solutions of ionic compounds and writing a few words about the differences between them.

Question 5 is the obligatory skills audit question. It just involves posting of few ‘radar diagrams’ showing the various skills acquired and developed during the progress of the course, followed by a few words of reflection. It’s easy marks if it is taken (at least) semi-seriously.

The entire assignment is worth 6% of the total mark for the course.

Welcome to the pleasure dome ... er ... breakout room

I had a couple of tutorials last week, which were both very different to each other. One was on Python and run by a very seasoned OU physics tutor. It was very basic, but in the past students have struggled with the Python component of the course so I can understand why these events are put on.

The other tutorial was a 'deep dive' into the Topic 1 - Forces part of the course. I wasn't looking forward to it because the tutor advertised the use of 'breakout rooms' with students working in small groups. That really isn't my thing at all but in the end it wasn't that bad. It was a bit more advanced than what was actually required to understand that part of the course, but it was still very good nonetheless. I've had that tutor before and this tutorial was just as good as the previous one.

Next week is 'Python week' and I'm looking forward to the tutorials on computer programming as a bit of light relief to the last few days. I've struggled a bit with the 'baked bean can on a chopping board' practical write up even though it should be familiar material to me. A combination of looking for properties to buy and coping with what appeared to be gastric flu, or something similar to it, has really not helped at all.

TMA01 returns

TMA01 was marked and returned on Friday. I got 94% which is fair enough. Nothing wrong with the tutor's interpretation of the marking scheme, it was the marking scheme itself that was a bit odd. I got full marks for the collaborative practical work, so I definitely can't complain about that.

I made a very preliminary start on TMA02 by looking at the Python question and the practical work involving a baked bean can sliding down a chopping board. Both are manageable, just not particularly interesting.

I had an email on Friday asking how SM123 was going. It was more of a questionnaire really. I said the tutorials were a bit disorganised and the skills development component was a bit over the top, which is fair enough, I think.

There was a ‘Forces’ tutorial on Monday which is Topic 1 of the course, and the first of the real science bits. It wasn’t too bad but I fell asleep after about 30 minutes, more due to tiredness of the house hunting than anything else. It attracted about 70 students, which was about 10 times the usual number. I listened to the recording shortly after transmission and it was OK apart from a couple of annoying people who kept asking attention seeking questions.

I had a skills tutorial on Tuesday which was about OCL/Jupyter notebooks. The tutor was very eloquent and really knowledgeable. The quite complex information was put across really well. Python was only briefly mentioned but the tutorial was well worth attending anyway. About 9 others attended. 

There was yet another tutorial on Forces on Thursday but this one was a bit basic and really aimed at absolute beginners. In fairness, it was advertised as a ‘relaxed introduction’ so in that sense it did exactly what it said on the tin. The tutor had a cat called Rico that was put on camera, presumably to make the session as informal and accessible as possible. It wasn't the best tutorial I've had, but not the worst either.

TMA01 - Gone but not forgotton

I've sent TMA01 off a bit early. It didn't need to be submitted until noon on Monday 4th November, but I've done the best I can and if I keep it any longer I'll just keep tinkering with it and probably end up losing as many marks as I gain. The entire assignment is only worth 7% of the total course mark, so I'm not sure it's worth worrying too much about. 

I had another skills tutorial yesterday, but this time on how to write, especially 'reflection'. It attracted a grand total of 9 students and it really wasn't one of the better ones that I've attended if I'm entirely honest. The first few minutes were bordering on dire in places and involved us writing on an electronic whiteboards in pretty colours. I managed to endure it for about 30 minutes before just leaving it and having a bit of a moan to my wife. The tutor was a very experienced hardened OU stalwart and although the tutorial may have been useful for some people, it really wasn't for me. I might take a look at the recording at some point, but I'm in no rush.

A couple of days ago I was sent another list of upcoming skills tutorials but it appeared to be a bit of a rushed effort. Lots of formatting errors, duplication, missing information, dates in the past etc. I added them to the list I already had but not sure how useful they will be, or if they will actually take place at all. The organisation of these tutorials is a bit questionable to say the least.

The collaborative weather station data activity appears to be well and truly finished now with the two bickerers producing a time consuming detailed 'final report' that wasn't actually asked for or as far as I could tell, going to attract any marks. A few students from the other practical groups appeared to have dropped out and have not shown up to do it at all. A couple have shown up too late to be able to collaborate with others. It's all very odd.

Write-up week

I had another skills tutorial yesterday on maths for SM123. It was really just a review of rounding numbers, significant figures and standard notation etc, but it was very good for what it was. The tutor had a lovely Irish accent and was really easy on the ear. The only thing about it that was disappointing was the number of participants. It varied between three and five throughout the hour long tutorial, which out of 670 or so potential students, really is dire. I don't know if it is due to poor advertising or just student apathy, but it's not a great use of the Open University's limited resources.

However, the main news since the last post is the progress of the 'group of four' collaborative weather station data activity. One hasn't shown up, one of them is me, and the other two appear to be bickering. The main problem being that they overcomplicate everything. If you are looking at hours of sunshine for example then you don't need to look at rainfall and temperature, but some people think otherwise. It's really frustrating. This 'activity' should have finished on Friday, but it's still rumbling on and that eats into write-up time. Luckily I've been writing up TMA01 as I've been progressing, so no great panic, but it would be nice if I could just finish it off and get it out of the way.

Other groups are just as bad, if not worse, and have turned 'over egging the pudding' into a whole new ball game. They have brought in statistical analysis from other modules, rolling averages, multi-coloured trendlines, and more graphs and variables than you can wave a stick at.

Group practical work

Yes, I know it isn't popular but collaboration is one of those skills that employers look for, and although I'm unlikely to work in science again I can fully understand why it's in a level 1 science course and I intend to give it my best shot.

8 (out of nominally 20) of us have thrown their hat into the ring and told our group tutor that we are up for it and ready to go. We work in groups of 4 and there is, unfortunately, very little activity in either of the two groups at the moment. I hope things liven up soon.

Typing of which, I attended (remotely of course) the third of the 4 skills tutorials that were hastily put on for us. The second one on Microsoft Excel didn't happen because the tutor didn't turn up. No explanation given for that, which I think is a bit of a poor show really. This one however was very good. It was on Microsoft Word, which didn't sound too exciting but it was all stuff relevant to submitting TMAs and how tutors like them set out. Can't fault either the content or the delivery and I told the tutor at the time that the presentation was excellent, which it definitely was. It was a shame that only 9 students attended out of about 670 or so.

My first tutorial

There are several tutorials on this course and most of them are module wide. There is a minority which are tutor group wide and I had one of those yesterday evening. Out of a potential 20 students, only six attended and that dropped to five about half way through.

Despite that, there were some useful tips about the components of TMA01 and I will modify my partly completed assignment as a result of this information.

Being an OU student

There was an optional 'skills tutorial' this morning and to be honest it didn't sound promising. With the title 'Being an OU student' I really thought it would be dreadful but in fact it was very good. It was more of a combination of how 'Adobe Connect' works together with a bit of pastoral stuff, which is really what the tutor group tutor should be doing. This tutor did it very well, and in my opinion is a real asset to the OU. It was a shame that there were only 9 students (out of potentially 670) attending, although it was recorded so others can see it at a later date. The tutorial wasn't particularly well advertised and I got the impression that it was a last minute rushed afterthought.

Having looked back on it, 'being an OU student' is the title of an Openlearn course, which the tutor was alluding to, and in a way was semi-advertising. I thought it sounded familiar and having looked at my study records it turns out that I did it a while ago, even though I forgot all about it until I made a point of looking it up.

The day before the day

My tutor 'marked' TMA00 today and returned it to me. The feedback was useful, but of course no marks were gained because the weighting of this assignment is zero. It is formative only.

Tomorrow is the first day of the course officially and is the start of 'Preparation week', which I have already completed but it's nice to get a few day (or weeks) ahead. Tomorrow is also the first of the 'skills tutorials'. I'm not sure 'being an OU student is going to be that useful but I will drop in and have a look to get a feel of the thing.

Tutors and Tutorials

The 'welcome briefing' from the SM123 course chair went well last night. There was not much in the way of entirely new information, but I did get an appreciation of the size and capacity of the course. 

There are around 670 students on the course in 34 tutor groups. Each group therefore comprises of around 20 students. The groups are arranged in 'clusters', and for some reason I am in the North Cluster. The other two are East and West.

The tutorial booking thingy was open for business and I booked mine this morning.

There is quite a bit of choice and in most cases, it will be a tutor from another cohort delivering the session. Some tutorials are recorded for later viewing and others are not. 

There are also 'skills' based tutorials on subjects such as Microsoft Word, Excel, and how to tackle the 'reflection' parts of the assignments. There are four planned for October but I suspect there will be more as the course progresses. My first 'skills' tutorial will be on Saturday 5th October and is entitled 'Being an OU student'.

In addition to this, my tutor contacted me by email to introduce themselves and asked me to reply to show that I am a live student and not a passive withdrawal or non-starter. I did this and got a reply back which is good news. I also submitted TMA00 to get it out of the way really and that will be 'marked' and returned to me to show how the electronic submission system works.

Tutor Allocation and Welcome briefing

I've been house hunting over past few days, and when I was out and about this afternoon, I noticed the name of my tutor has appeared on the student homepage. Can't give too many details for confidentiality reasons but I'm very pleased with the allocation. I can't book tutorials yet but I can upload TMAs. I'll give it a day or two then upload TMA00 to start a dialogue.

I have also been allocated a sub group for the historic weather station activity. This is part of the group practical activity and collaboration part of the course. Up to four students in each sub group, or so I'm told.

Tomorrow there is an online Welcome Briefing by the module team chair. I'm not quite sure what that involves but it is recorded and the presentation slides will be made available shortly afterwards.

Making a start on TMA01

The tutor marked assignments appear to be very 'bitty' on this course and TMA01 is no exception. There are five questions on this one and I outline them below.

Question 1 is about scales. The very large, like the size of the universe, and the very small, like the size of a proton. The first part of the question involves filling in a table of various sizes of things, doing a few calculations and unit conversions. The second part is 'reflecting' on the comparison between two different scales.

Question 2 is an example of the type of 'practical' work on SM123 and involves writing a protocol for making a cup of tea and then risk assessing the activity. To be fair, it's difficult to do practical work on a distance learning science course, and this is only practice for more scientific procedures later on.

Question 3 involves the collection and presentation of remote sensor weather station data using 'live' readings from the UK and Tenerife. A spreadsheet is constructed and values entered. Students work individually on this task.

Question 4 is the presentation of historical weather station data working with other students in small groups. You get some marks for providing evidence of interacting with the others using the provided forum.

Question 5 is a skills audit of some of the skills acquired or strengthened during the first four weeks of the course. It is made slightly more complicated by the insistence of the production of 'Radar diagrams', as shown on a previous post. There is a lot of reflective learning evidence required for this question, and I suspect some students will take it more seriously than others.

The entire assignment is worth 7% of the total mark for the course.

Waiting for Godot

Well, waiting for my tutor really. I have TMA00 completed and sitting on my laptop all ready to go. Being allocated a tutor really does unlock all types of things. I can book tutorials (which I will probably never attend), gain access to the tutor forums (which I will probably never visit), look them up on LinkedIn, test the electronic TMA submission facility, and generally feel part of the OU experience.

It's a bit of a lottery though. Some tutors are very good and others are dreadful.

TMA00 - Skills audit

TMA00 does not contribute to the final mark but submitting it starts a dialogue with the tutor and tests the eTMA upload facility that is used for subsequent TMAs.

There are nine 'radar diagrams' to complete as part of a skills audit which is undertaken at the start of the module. These are reviewed and revisited as progress is made over the forthcoming weeks. It includes skills such as 'Collaborating with others', 'Gathering & evaluating information', and 'Communicating ideas'. I can see how this type of thing has some merit, especially for younger students, but I can also understand why more seasoned students regard it as a load of unnecessary tosh.

SM123-24J Module website opens

The module website opened at midnight on Tuesday 10th September, but the course doesn't officially start until Saturday 5th October, with a preparation week, in effect a 'week 0', from 28th September to 4th October. 

Tutorials and study events

This has appeared on the student homepage so things are getting nearer.

Countdown to SM123

The countdown begins ...

Keeping my hand in

 

I had a few weeks to spare around the Christmas period and my almost local college (NESCOT) was offering free level 2 (approx. GCSE level) courses so I gave this a bash. It's not a coding course as such, it doesn't concentrate on a particular language, just gives an overview of coding principles and project management. It's not for everyone, and I can understand why some people might not find it all that useful or interesting, but I found it OK. 

SM123 Module website details

This one sneaked up on me. The module website opens about three weeks before the course begins on Saturday 6th October 

I have enrolled!

I have finally enrolled on the Open University module SM123 Physics and Space. I have wanted to do this for a while now. The module is a bit pricey at £1818 for only 30 credits (30 CATS points) but I think I will get a lot out of it. The Python content in particular is well worth doing, but I've heard it isn't taught particularly well, so it helps to have previous experience of coding.

My studies may be continuing ... or may not.

After taking a break for a few years, I might return to study, if I can afford it. I might kick off with SM123 Physics and Space, which starts in October 2024. One of the best things about the course is the Python coding. It is also one of the worst things about the course. Lots of people drop out because they find the the coding part horrendous. The pass rate for last year (22J) was 61% and the year before (21J) was 65.4%. Much worse than for other Level 1 science courses, apparently. Registration opens on 20th March, so I'll make a decision shortly after that date.