Evaluation as Development

I never tire of talking about evaluation of teaching! Evaluation is our opportunity, that is, the opportunity of students, lecturers, heads of programme, and study boards, to optimise the teaching and educational programmes in which we are involved. Evaluation provides feedback to those who request it, but it also prompts reflection among those who take part in it. And there are so many ways of conducting evaluations that a good and meaningful method can be found for evaluating virtually any situation.

You simply need to know the methods.

To support this, SDU UP has compiled a range of evaluation methods in a resource entitled Evaluation of Teaching (Undervisningsevaluering). The methods are divided into three categories:

• Methods suitable for evaluating and developing higher education pedagogical competences.
• Methods suitable for evaluating and developing teaching.
• Methods suitable for evaluating and developing educational programmes.

All methods are described according to the same template: the purpose of the evaluation, the actor(s) involved, when the evaluation can be conducted, the practical steps involved, an estimate of the resources required, and the strengths and limitations of the method.

Collegial Supervision as a Method for Evaluating Higher Education Pedagogical Competences

For example, collegial supervision is one, though not the only, method suitable for evaluating higher education pedagogical competences, such as a lecturer’s didactic choice of interactive methods in a lecture. The method involves one or more colleagues observing the lecture, with the lecturer having identified interactive methods as the focus of the observation beforehand.

Following the teaching session, the colleagues and lecturer engage in dialogue about how the colleagues perceived both the rationale for and the impact of the interactions. The method requires approximately one hour in addition to the observation itself.

Reference Group as a Method for Evaluating Teaching

Another example is the reference group, which is one, though not the only, method suitable for evaluating teaching, that is, the co-created process between students and lecturer that constitutes a course or course element. The method involves selecting, at the beginning of the teaching period, a group of students that is representative of the class. Other students can provide their feedback to this group, which meets with the lecturer as needed.

Any topic may be discussed at the meetings, but the lecturer might, for example, ask for input on how the students prepare for teaching sessions, and why they do or do not do so. Resource requirements range from moderate to high, depending on the frequency and duration of the meetings between the lecturer and the reference group.

Focus Group Interview as a Method for Evaluating Educational Programmes

A focus group interview is an example of one, though not the only, method suitable for evaluating educational programmes, that is, the coherence and/or progression between course elements. As in research contexts, the method involves interviewing a group of students about a particular theme related to a recently completed course, semester, or educational programme. One possible theme could be how and when the group experienced connections between theoretical and practical teaching.

The group interview enables participants to build upon, nuance, and challenge one another’s responses. Consequently, the interview should not last less than one hour, in order to allow sufficient scope for participants to elaborate on their views.

Follow-Up and Coordination

For all of the methods described above, and for the other methods presented in Evaluation of Teaching, follow-up and coordination are crucial if the evaluation is to be experienced as meaningful and as contributing to enhanced quality in teaching and learning.

 
Follow-up is important because evaluations in themselves are merely feedback. Development occurs through the actions taken in response to that feedback. Follow-up therefore includes both the subsequent work with the results of an evaluation and the communication of those results to relevant actors and management, including how the findings have been addressed.

For example, based on feedback from a reference group, a lecturer might adjust the nature of and instructions for preparation activities in a course and subsequently inform the students about what changes have been made and why. At the request of their Head of Studies, the lecturer may also share positive experiences from this revised approach to student preparation with colleagues at a staff seminar. In this way, evaluation becomes more than a collection of opinions. It becomes a shared foundation for action, learning, and quality development.

Another important consideration is coordination. Evaluation of teaching is only one of many evaluations in which we are all invited, or sometimes required, to participate, and the risk of evaluation fatigue is ever present. It is therefore important not to over-evaluate, but rather to reduce the number of evaluation activities. With fewer, carefully selected evaluation activities, it also becomes easier to coordinate them so that there is not excessive overlap in who is asked to participate, when they are asked to do so, and what they are asked to evaluate.

Enjoy working with evaluations of teaching, and please do not hesitate to contact SDU UP if you would like to discuss or further develop your evaluation practice.