Evaluation strategy

The evaluation is oral. It is based on the questions included in the written final evaluation.

BA:
The evaluation takes place  in connection with a teaching session half-way through the semester, where the lecturer allocates time for the students to discuss the course without the teacher present (10 minutes). A facilitator (and possibly a minute taker) will be appointed from among the students. After the students’ internal discussion, they will discuss the teaching with the lecturer. The facilitator is the moderator. Afterwards, the facilitator (and the minute taker) submit a breif summary to the degree programme secretary. 

MA:
The teacher may choose to carry out the evaluation without leaving the room, if deemed appropriate. The teacher acts as a moderator. A minute taker is appointed from among the students. The minute taker then submits a brief summary, reviewed by the lecturer, to the degree programme secretary. If the evaluation gives rise to follow-up, the Head of Studies will arrange for such follow-up.

All offered subjects are evaluated mid-term each semester.

The final evaluation is in writing and takes place in EVAL. This is done in connection with the penultimate or final teaching session, where time is allocated during class for the students to complete their evaluation. The lecturer summarises and comments on the evaluations in EVAL.

A final evaluation is conducted for all offered subjects each semester. An overview of the questions in the evaluations can be found further down the page.

Especially with regard to the course Philosophy of Science I + II: Both parts of the course are evaluated together, and it is the responsibility of the teacher to frame the evaluation to include both parts of the course and the connection between them.

No.	Statement
1	Purpose: The purpose of the subject and what I am expected to learn were made clear to me at an early stage of the teaching (here, ‘purpose’ relates to the subject, but may also include a career dimension). [free text field to be inserted]
2	Link: There is a clear connection between the purpose of the subject, the content of the course and the method of assessment, as well as between the subject and the other subject elements of the education programme. [free text field to be inserted]
3	Understanding: I have gained a greater understanding of the subject’s themes and topics during the course (incl. independent preparation, working in study groups etc.) [free text field to be inserted]
4	Activity: The course has supported me in actively learning (e.g. through discussions, exercises, group work and independent preparation). [free text field to be inserted]
5	Cooperation and dialogue: There has been a good cooperation and dialogue between students and lecturers. [free text field to be inserted]

Scoring scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree, 6 = undecided/irrelevant

At Comparative Literature, the arrangement with dialogic semester reporting meetings continues. These are placed at the beginning of the following semester, where all lecturers meet with student representatives from each subject. The meetings are partly intended to constructively discuss examples of best practices and any challenges that need to be addressed, and partly to give the students ownership of their education. The meetings are forward-looking and focus on subject development.

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.

By allocating time during the course for both mid-term evaluation and final evaluation, the best conditions for a high response rate are ensured. The mid-term evaluation’s initial oral discussion between the students without the presence of the lecturer and the anonymity of the final evaluation provide the best conditions for representative evaluations.

The Study Board reviews the results of the evaluations twice a year. Here, the Study Board’s student representatives have influence on and insight into any initiatives that are taken on the basis of the evaluations. The Heads of Studies of the education programmes will also ensure that information about initiatives reaches the student community, either via written communication or at information meetings. At Comparative Literature, the semester reporting meetings are also a forum where information about initiatives is passed on.