1 / 24

EVALUATION OF THE TEACHING PROCESS

EVALUATION OF THE TEACHING PROCESS. Marta Ljubešić National Council for Higher Education Zagreb - Croatia. Feedback from the student survey conducted at the University of Zagreb. Chronology of the student survey’s implementation at the University of Zagreb.

russelltaylor
Download Presentation

EVALUATION OF THE TEACHING PROCESS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EVALUATIONOF THE TEACHING PROCESS Marta Ljubešić National Council for Higher Education Zagreb - Croatia

  2. Feedback from the student surveyconducted at the University of Zagreb

  3. Chronology of the student survey’s implementation at the University of Zagreb • q      up to 1997 – conducted by teachers on their own initiative • q      from 15 January, 1997 the University Statute demands that the quality of the teaching process be monitored • q      in 1997 a uniform questionnaire was applied at most faculties for the first time

  4. qautumn 1998: the implementation of the pilot project – survey done among the 2nd year students in the academic year 1998/1999, having been statisticallyanalysed within one central institution, the results were processed in Excel and then returned to the faculties for interpretation • qin 1999 – the questionnaire evaluation done by the faculties and the University Board for Survey Implementation

  5. Survey results • q      the pilot project included 28 out of 33 faculties • q249 teachers were evaluated in terms of their teaching quality • q5206 students answered questions about the quality of lectures and exercises

  6. q      students’ participation varied between 10 and 90% • q      students filled in the questionnaires responsibly and less than 1% of the answers were illegible

  7. Lecture attendance

  8. Lectures clearly

  9. Interesting style of presentation

  10. Encourages (independent) student work

  11. Ready for discussion with students

  12. Treats students with respect

  13. Lectures – Regularity and Punctuality

  14. Available literature for covered material

  15. Would you recommend this lecturer to other students?

  16. Survey evaluation comprised: • qanalysis of the answers obtained from the faculties • q      evaluation of the survey’s contents and the “mechanisms” of its implementation • q      analysis of negative and positive points of the survey implementation

  17. The faculties gave answers to the following questions: • qWhat has been done with the results of the survey conducted in the academic year 1998/99? • q      What is perceived as the main barrier to the effective implementation of the student survey at your faculty? • q      How do you check the quality of teaching at your faculty?

  18. q  19 faculties answered the above questions q      a majority of answers were positive q      a single faculty gave direct feedback to the teachers insisting on the introduction of changes q      the results could have been used more appropriately

  19. Evaluation of the survey’s contents and the “mechanisms” of its implementation • q      contents – no objections • q      in the meantime the conditions for cheaper and more effective implementation of the survey have been established – Carnet, on line

  20. Analysis of negative points: • qlack of tradition in this type of evaluation of teachers • q      inadequate and uneven understanding of the survey’s final aims • q      doubt that the survey has any effect at all since even better ideas fail in their realisation • q      fear that the results could be used against the students and the teachers

  21. qnegative attitude of teachers towards evaluation (partly based on the fact that “public opinion” was manipulated in the past) • q      opinion that the survey examines superficial popularity of teachers and not the quality of their teaching • q      irresponsible and superficial interpretation of results, which makes manipulations possible

  22. q      great differences among the faculties: some have been monitoring their achievements meticulously and have been using questionnaires for a longer time and some hold this practice superfluous and believe it “to affect their autonomy” • q      different unresolved organisational and financial problems of implementation

  23. q      teachers doubt that conducting the survey before they are given better working conditions may have any effect at all • q      low motivation for conducting the survey (among some teachers) since it does not offer any new important insights into the teaching process

  24. Positive points: • q      positive attitudes towards this type of teaching quality evaluation • q      survey encouraged thinking about the minimum quality standard of both, the teaching process and the attitude of teachers towards students

More Related