At the commencement of the teaching, the lecturer informs the students about the purpose, content and examination regulations of the subject, and the subject is put into perspective in relation to the other subjects and preferably in relation to a future job.
The students can also be encouraged to explain their expectations for the subject – preferably in writing, so that the lecturer has the opportunity to match the students’ expectations against the subject’s purpose etc.
The lecturer also explains the evaluation procedure, and the students are informed about when the mid-term evaluation and final evaluation take place.
The purpose of an oral evaluation in the middle of the teaching process is to identify inconveniences in relation to, for example, teaching methods and course materials with a view to making adjustments in the remaining teaching process.
During the oral evaluation, the lecturer summarises the teaching process, including an assessment of whether the planned goals have been achieved and whether, in the lecturer’s opinion, there have been any other issues during the process. Students will have the opportunity to comment on this presentation and to put forward and discuss other subject matters of relevance to the course. The aim is to keep the evaluation within a time frame of approx. 20 minutes, but if further discussion is required, the evaluation may extend up to 45 minutes.
The project-oriented course is evaluated in writing with the following questions:
- What worked well?
- What recommendations do you have for better practice in the future?
An evaluation made orally and in writing is conducted at the end of the entire course. For ITPD however, only an evaluation in writing is conducted.
In the written evaluation, the students fill in the evaluation form issued by SDU Student Services. All subjects are given a final evaluation upon completion each semester. See the next item for an overview of the questions.
The study board discusses the course assessments and decides if further discussions are needed. If so, a member of the study board talks to the course responsible (and/or the teacher if the course is not taught by the course responsible) about the challenging issues.
| 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. |
| 2 |
Link: There is a clear connection between the purpose of the subject, the content of the teaching and the exam. |
| 3 |
Understanding: I have gained a greater understanding of the subject’s themes and topics through the teaching (incl. independent preparation, work in study groups etc.). |
| 4 |
Activity: The teaching has supported me in actively learning (e.g. through discussions, exercises, group work and independent preparation). |
| 5 |
Cooperation and dialogue: The cooperation and dialogue between students and lecturers was good. |
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.
Lecturers can set a framework for evaluation and, for example, incorporating it into their teaching. The evaluation must fit into the students’ timetable and be conducted at a time during the course where the students can respond.
There must be a clear communication about why it is important that students participate in the evaluation. Lecturers should feel free to provide examples of the impact of previous evaluations.
Lecturers may choose to ask students to address specific questions during the oral final evaluation.
General information about evaluations is integrated in the start of studies.
Student representatives are encouraged to present results and action plans.