Module Evaluation Results
Programming for Life Sciences — 2025/26
2.3
Teaching Quality
out of 4.0
2.4
Overall Satisfaction
out of 4.0
3.2
Practical Skills
out of 4.0
3.4
AI Understanding
out of 4.0
Survey Results
Scale: 1 (Not at all) to 4 (To a large extent)
Overall Mean: 2.86/4.0
Strong on practical skills and AI guidance; teaching pace needs work
Grade Distribution
DNA Analysis Assignment (15% weighting) — 57 students
65.2%
Mean
65%
Median
47–82%
Range
Feedback Themes
Analysis of free-text comments (frequency of mentions)
What Students Valued
Google Colab Notebooks
"Very helpful in developing skills"
Course Website
"Elegant... I enjoy learning at my own pace"
Practical Application
"Learnt practical skills... deeply interpret plots"
Workshop Sessions
"Good place to ask questions and get feedback"
Primary Challenges Identified
Lecture Pacing
Lectures ran too fast for beginner-intermediate learners; not enough time to absorb content
Assessment Workload
70% DepMap project estimated at 40 hours but took 80+ hours for many students
Resource Integration
Multiple resources (DataCamp, notebooks, website) without clear unified structure
Workshop Support
Inconsistent support quality; some students felt redirected to AI rather than helped
The Bottom Line
The "Innovation Tax" was high — students struggled with pace and delivery. But the "Innovation Dividend" was real — they recognised the career value and developed practical skills they found deeply valuable.
82%
Python Test Average
67%
Final Assignment Median