evaluation of the teaching process marta ljubešić national council for higher education zagreb -...
TRANSCRIPT
EVALUATION OF THE TEACHING PROCESS
Marta LjubešićNational Council for Higher EducationZagreb - Croatia
Feedback from the student survey conducted at the
University of Zagreb
Chronology of the student survey’s
implementation at the University of Zagreb
up to 1997 – conducted by teachers on their own initiative
from 15 January, 1997 the University Statute demands that the quality of the teaching process be monitored
in 1997 a uniform questionnaire was applied at most faculties for the first time
autumn 1998: the implementation of the pilot project – survey done among the 2nd year students in the academic year 1998/1999, having been statistically analysed within one central institution, the results were processed in Excel and then returned to the faculties for interpretation in 1999 – the questionnaire evaluation done by the faculties and the University Board for Survey Implementation
Survey results
the pilot project included 28 out of 33 faculties
249 teachers were evaluated in terms of their teaching quality
5206 students answered questions about the quality of lectures and exercises
students’ participation varied between 10 and 90%
students filled in the questionnaires responsibly and less than 1% of the answers were illegible
Lecture attendance
53,7
30,7
14,6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
regular occasional rare
Lecture attendance (%)
Lectures clearly
4630,9
12,6 5,7 3,80
1020304050
Very goodGood
Sufficient
Insufficient
Cannot evaluate
Lectures clearly (%)
Interesting style of presentation
34,329,9
19,211
4,20
10
20
30
40
Very goodGood
Sufficient
Insufficient
Cannot evaluate
Interesting style of presentation (%)
Encourages (independent) student work
23,2
30,8
20,813,5
10,4
05
101520253035
Very goodGood
Sufficient
Insufficient
Cannot evaluate
Encourages (independent) student work (%)
Ready for discussion with students
59
21,87,7 3,4 7,1
0204060
Very good Good
Sufficient
Insufficient
Cannot evaluate
Ready for discussion with students (%)
Treats students with respect
59
21,8
7,73,4 7,1
0102030405060
Very good Good Sufficient Insufficient Cannotevaluate
Treats students with respect (%)
Lectures – Regularity and Punctuality
81,5
13,51,5 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Regular and on time
Regular with delayIrregular
Extremely irregular
Lectures - Regularity and Punctuality (%)
Available literature for covered material
34,5
21,8 18,1
0
10
20
30
40
Very good Good Insufficient
Available literature for covered material (%)
Would you recommend this lecturer to other students?
39,9 45,1
11,3 3,70
20
40
60
Yes, definitely
Probably yes
Probably notNot at all
Would you recommend this lecturer to other students? (%)
Survey evaluation comprised:
analysis of the answers obtained from the faculties
evaluation of the survey’s contents and the “mechanisms” of its implementation
analysis of negative and positive points of the survey implementation
The faculties gave answers to the following questions:
What has been done with the results of the survey conducted in the academic year 1998/99? What is perceived as the main barrier to the effective implementation of the student survey at your faculty? How do you check the quality of teaching at your faculty?
19 faculties answered the above questions
a majority of answers were positive
a single faculty gave direct feedback to the teachers insisting on the introduction of changes
the results could have been used more appropriately
Evaluation of the survey’s contents and the “mechanisms” of its implementation
contents – no objections
in the meantime the conditions for cheaper and more effective implementation of the survey have been established – Carnet, on line
Analysis of negative points:
lack of tradition in this type of evaluation of teachers inadequate and uneven understanding of the survey’s final aims doubt that the survey has any effect at all since even better ideas fail in their realisation fear that the results could be used against the students and the teachers
negative attitude of teachers towards evaluation (partly based on the fact that “public opinion” was manipulated in the past) opinion that the survey examines superficial popularity of teachers and not the quality of their teaching irresponsible and superficial interpretation of results, which makes manipulations possible
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”
different unresolved organisational and financial problems of implementation
teachers doubt that conducting the survey before they are given better working conditions may have any effect at all
low motivation for conducting the survey (among some teachers) since it does not offer any new important insights into the teaching process
Positive points:
positive attitudes towards this type of teaching quality evaluation
survey encouraged thinking about the minimum quality standard of both, the teaching process and the attitude of teachers towards students