1 / 15

EVALUATION OF COURSE EVALUATIONS.

EVALUATION OF COURSE EVALUATIONS. by Prof. Peter Friis-Hansen, Assoc. Prof. Niels Houbak and Prof. Peder Klit Department for Mechanical Engineering (MEK), Technical University of Denmark (DTU) DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. Evaluation of courses ?. When is a course a good course?.

eadair
Download Presentation

EVALUATION OF COURSE EVALUATIONS.

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. EVALUATION OF COURSE EVALUATIONS. by Prof. Peter Friis-Hansen, Assoc. Prof. Niels Houbak and Prof. Peder Klit Department for Mechanical Engineering (MEK), Technical University of Denmark (DTU) DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.

  2. Evaluation of courses ? When is a course a good course? • When the lecturer senses the success. • When most students pass the exam • When the students are happy • When the industry are pleased with the candidates • When the students have learned enough to …. • continue How do we measure it? (the engineering approach) • Attendance • Percentage passing the course exam • Grade average • Student satisfaction • Lecturer satisfaction • Something else?

  3. Final Evaluation Questionnaire • 3 sections. A: The course, B: The lecturers, C: Written comments • Has been used for more than 15 years, the last 3 years in electronic form. • Must be completed one week before end of term (discussed at the last lecture) • Is important for the lecturer and for the department management (study board) • Information is included in overall evaluations of staffs and studies

  4. The Questionnaire. Section A • 1. Are the prescribed course prerequisites adequate? • 2. How is the course material? • 3. Is the form of the course adequate? • 4. A standard course has an average workload of 9 hours pr week; how much time did you spend? • 5. How many lectures did you attend? • 6. What is your general satisfaction with the course? • 7. For courses taught in English; did this influence your outcome?

  5. The Questionnaire. Section B • How did the (named) lecturer present the subject? • Is the lecturer inspiring? • How did you experience the dialog/cooperation with the lecturer? • How is the lecturer as supervisor? • 5. For group works; did you receive criticism for handed in exercises during the course? Section C • I appreciate • I criticize • I suggest

  6. Answers and Weights: Section A.

  7. Answers and Weights: Section B.

  8. Post processing. • For each question an average value is calculated • Questions are weighed against one another • Average values are multiplied with weights and summed • A course/lecturer utility number is the outcome • This is a subjective one number [0-10] evaluation – far from any truth! • BUT it may contain some information.

  9. Cumulative Curves.

  10. Time Evolution: Fall term course curves.

  11. Time Evolution: Fall term lecturer curves.

  12. Evaluation action. Reactions from the study board • Letters to excellent performing lecturers • Letters to poor performing lecturers – filtered for good excuses. Important to notice, that the tone is: ”What do think you can do about this situation? Can we be of any help?” • Easy to locate/spot changes in behaviour (monitoring 50+ courses is hard)

  13. Conclusions: • It is always worthwhile to evaluate what you are doing. • Evaluations can sometimes be used for something differently. • The anonymous comparison allows for lecturers to see his/her own performance relative to other staff members. • All lecturers notice that their evaluation result has been processed. It is not only the poor performers that are noticed. • The weighing factors indicate what is important when improving the teaching quality. • The defined “Utility-system” generates a “dynamic normal”, i.e. conscientious staff will try to improve the teaching quality to obtain a good position on the cumulative curves. • 7. Tests have shown that radical changes to the weights are needed to form a noticeable change in the ranking

More Related