The two Boards of Studies at the School of Culture and Society have adopted an evaluation policy for all Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programmes at the school. It is described below in a shortened version, based on the procedure that lecturers, heads of department and students must be familiar with and follow in connection with the evaluation of teaching. (The full version of the evaluation policy can be found here).
The day-to-day responsibility for quality assurance and the development of individual courses rests with the chairs of the programme committees, who are responsible for ensuring that the following evaluation procedure is followed:
Alignment of expectations at the first class meeting of all courses, based on the course description and the learning objectives in the academic regulations.
Oral mid-term evaluation in all courses.
Final evaluation conducted digitally in Brightspace and supplemented by a dialogue with the students during the last class. A written summary of the dialogue (and, if relevant, the report from Brightspace) is then submitted to the department’s programme committee (or the Board of Studies in Theology).
The evaluation policy of the Boards of Studies forms part of Aarhus University’s quality assurance policy.
All courses begin with an alignment of expectations, during which the lecturer outlines what the students can expect from the specific course and what expectations there are regarding the students’ participation in the teaching.
The purpose of this is partly to clarify and discuss the premises of the course, and partly to lay the foundation for subsequent evaluation activities. The following points should therefore be included:
Academic objectives and learning outcomes (cf. the descriptions in the academic regulations)
Examination format and requirements (cf. the descriptions in the academic regulations)
Forms of teaching
Expectations regarding student preparation and participation
Students’ expectations of the course
Presentation of the syllabus (if relevant)
The oral mid-term evaluation focuses on discussing whether there are aspects of the specific course that could beneficially be adjusted or changed in relation to the contributions of the lecturer(s) and the students to the learning process. The questions should be based on the themes addressed during the initial alignment of expectations. The following questions should therefore be considered:
Are the teaching and learning activities appropriate in relation to the academic objectives/learning outcomes?
How do the students experience their own engagement and effort?
Is the syllabus and academic level appropriate?
The mid-term evaluation is primarily an internal course process and does not necessarily have to be summarized in writing or discussed in the programme committee. Each programme committee may introduce a local practice for reporting and discussing mid-term evaluations.
The requirement for a mid-term evaluation applies only to courses with more than six weeks of teaching. Summer school courses and other compact or intensive courses are therefore not required to conduct a mid-term evaluation.
The final evaluation is conducted via Brightspace, where a shared digital questionnaire has been developed.
Guidelines for evaluation in Brightspace can be found here.
Two mandatory questions have been established at university level, which the individual lecturer may supplement with course-specific questions. In addition, Boards of Studies and programme committees may decide on common questions, for example if they wish to examine a particular area or special initiative across several degree programmes.
The evaluation must result in a written summary, signed by the lecturer and at least one student. It is submitted to the chair of the programme committee (in Theology, to the chair of the Board of Studies).
As a minimum, the evaluation must address the following questions:
Has the course met the course description and the academic objectives?
Has the course maintained an appropriate academic level?
The scope and academic level of the syllabus.
Which types of learning activities do the students consider beneficial/less beneficial for their learning?
The students’ preparation and participation, assessed in relation to the course’s ECTS weighting.
Have the agreements made in connection with the mid-term evaluation been followed up on?
What experiences can the lecturer(s) take forward in the continued development of learning activities in the evaluated course?
Finally, it is recommended to follow up on any initiatives taken to promote students’ reflection on their own learning and the outcomes of these initiatives.
The summaries are discussed within the individual programme committees. Subsequently, the chairs of the programme committees or the minute-taker summarise the evaluation in the template developed by IKS for this purpose and submit it to the Board of Studies before 31 March / 1 September (the template can be accessed on the Board of Studies’ website).
The aggregated summaries from all programme committees are discussed by the Board of Studies at meetings in October/November and March/April. On the basis of these discussions and the summaries from the individual programme committees, the Director of Studies prepares an overall report on the evaluation of the school’s teaching, which is published on the Arts study portal for students.
Below is a link to the standard questions that students are asked at the School of Culture and Society.