A mid-term evaluation, which can be oral, electronic or via class representatives. In connection with the mid-term evaluations, the lecturer in a subject must briefly notify the Study Board that the evaluation has been carried out, as well as if there are things to note. It is up to the individual lecturer whether the mid-term evaluation is anonymous.
All offered subjects with the exception of Project Week, SDG course and BA seminar are mid-term evaluated.
Final evaluations are written and anonymous. An overview of the questions in the evaluations can be found further down the page.
All offered subjects are evaluated at the end of the course.
| No. |
Questions |
| 1 |
How was the introduction at the internship site? |
| 2 |
To what extent did you know what the objectives were for your internship? |
| 3 |
To what extent did you find that your supervisors knew what the objectives were for your internship? |
| 4 |
To what extent was your stay well-planned (work tasks during the day, times, overall plan etc.)? |
| 5 |
Did your supervisors show interest in you by evaluating your knowledge, skills and competencies? |
| 6 |
Did your stay stimulate you to undertake further studies? |
| 7 |
To what extent were you allowed to do practical work yourself? |
| 8 |
To what extent were you taught practical skills? |
| 9 |
To what extent did you receive feedback on your activities, skills and competencies? |
| 10 |
Did the internship’s various staff groups show commitment to and interest in you and your education programme? |
| No. |
Questions |
| 1 |
How did you like the course? Name three things that characterise it. |
| 2 |
Do you have suggestions or ideas for the course another time? |
| 3 |
Elaborative or other comments? |
| 4 |
Do you have suggestions or comments for other courses? (E.g. previous courses in the subject area, associated instructor courses or the course to which the instructor hours belong) |
| 5 |
Lecturer(s) has/have formulated their expectations for the students’ efforts |
| 6 |
The purpose of the subject and what I am expected to learn were made clear to me at an early stage of the teaching |
| 7 |
My expectations for the course have been met |
| 8 |
I find there is a clear connection between the purpose of the subject, the content of the teaching and the exam |
| 9 |
I believe that I have gained a greater understanding of the subject’s themes and subject matters through the teaching (incl. independent preparation, work in study groups etc.) |
| 10 |
In my estimation, the teaching has supported me in actively learning (e.g. through discussions, exercises, group work and independent preparation) |
| 11 |
The course has increased my interest in the subject |
| 12 |
The cooperation and dialogue between students and lecturers was good |
| 13 |
In my experience, the application perspective was clear |
| 14 |
The lecturers’ contributions appeared well-coordinated (if multiple) |
| 15 |
In my experience, the course was coordinated in relation to other courses |
| 16 |
I often find that my preparation before teaching has been superfluous |
| 17 |
I often find that the level of teaching is too advanced |
| 18 |
Other: Please elaborate here |
The Study Board processes the results of the evaluations twice a year, cf. the annual cycle, and in connection with the status meetings for the Educational Report.
The results of the evaluations are published via the reporting form for the evaluation of education programmes.
The Study Board’s evaluation strategy is discussed at least once a year, cf. the annual cycle.