Evaluation strategy

A written mid-term evaluation is performed via eval.sdu.dk.

The lecturer of the subject in question is responsible for the mid-term evaluation being conducted and for the evaluation to be discussed for further development of the course. Therefore, the lecturer responsible for the course must report back to the students with his or her own considerations immediately after the mid-term evaluation has been completed.

Please find the questions for the mid-term evaluation below.

No.	Statement
1	Name three things that you like about the course so far. [free text field to be inserted]
2	Name three things you dislike about the course so far. [free text field to be inserted]
3	Is there anything that you think could be done better? [free text field to be inserted]

A written final evaluation is performed before the last lesson of the subject in question, allowing the lecturer to address the evaluation and report back to the class students before the end of the subject.

All offered subjects are evaluated at the end of the course.

No.	Statement
1	Purpose: Was it made clear to you at an early stage of the teaching what the purpose of the subject is and what you are expected to learn? [free text field inserted]
2	Link: Is there a clear connection between the learning objectives of the subject, the content of the teaching and the exam? [free text field to be inserted]
3	Understanding: Has the class teaching supported your religion studies learning? [free text field to be inserted]
4	How did you find the level of teaching? (Scoring scale: too basic, a little too basic, reasonable, a little too advanced, too advanced) Feel free to state the reason for your answer. [free text field to be inserted]
5	Overall, has this course contributed to your religion studies education? Please consider the course planning, selection of course literature and sources, as well as the teaching. [free text field to be inserted]
6	Activity: Have you yourself helped to make the teaching successful and learn as much as possible? Feel free to select multiple options. (Options: ‘Yes, through independent preparation’; “Yes, through reading groups’; ‘Yes, through active participation in class and the organised exercises, presentations etc.’; ‘Not sufficiently’; ‘Not at all’)
7	Cooperation and dialogue: Has the lecturer been available for questions and conversation, and has the interaction between student and lecturer during the lessons been constructive? [free text field to be inserted]
8	Which positive features would you highlight in the teaching and the course as a whole (incl. planning, progression in the semester, the selected literature, the course as part of your overall education programme etc.)? [free text field to be inserted]
9	Did you miss anything in particular? [free text field to be inserted]
10	Do you have suggestions for improvement? [free text field to be inserted]

For all questions but those specified above, the following scoring scale applies: 1 = to a small degree, 2 = somewhat, 3 = to a reasonable degree, 4 = substantially, 5 = to a high degree

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.

The lecturer allocates time to completing both mid-term and final evaluations in a lesson, either in-person or online.

The lecturer reports back to the students both in connection with the mid-term and final evaluation in a lesson, either in-person or online. The feedback in connection with the mid-term evaluation focuses on the development of the subject in the semester in question. For the final evaluation, the feedback focuses on the development of the subject and initiatives to be considered the next time it is offered and the education programme as a whole.