Student feedback helps to improve degree programme quality, because it shows the students’ perspectives and creates an ongoing debate about teaching methods and course content. It is therefore crucial for AU to include students’ teaching evaluations in the work to quality-assure individual course elements and thereby also the full degree programmes.
The priority given to teaching evaluations at AU has meant that the entire university has decided to use the same evaluation system: Blue.
Evaluation are carried out in Blue, which students and lecturers access via Brightspace. Teaching evaluations are set up for all courses that are configured with learning spaces in Brightspace. As a general rule, one evaluation is done per course. The evaluation is set up in the common learning space. More evaluations may be set up where relevant (e.g. to evaluate different series of lectures separately, or to evaluate clinical placements). The faculties determine their own practice regarding this.
To ensure the best possible basis for dialogue, lecturers should
- align expectations of the course with students at the start of the course
- support the evaluations and the shared responsibility for ensuring good teaching on courses
- allocate time to carry out the evaluations during teaching time
- discuss the results of the teaching evaluations with the students, if possible
The Education Committee has identified one compulsory question for full degree programmes and three questions for FE programmes, with data being shared through the joint management information system. Apart from these questions, the faculties are free to choose their own methods, and decide the scope and form of their teaching evaluations.
At BSS and HE, the questions are decided at faculty level, while the boards of studies and degree programme boards decide the questions for NAT, TECH and AR.
In addition to the general questions, lecturers can add up to ten course-specific questions.
The questions generally cover topics such as overall learning outcome, feedback, alignment of expectations, forms of instruction, the lecturer’s communication skills, course structure, academic context etc.
As a minimum, all faculties regularly and systematically follow up on courses via teaching evaluations as follows: in connection with new courses, in connection with new lecturers taking over the teaching of existing courses, at a frequency of approximately after every second or third teaching of a course, and according to specific needs.
NAT, TECH, BSS and HE evaluate all courses every semester. The evaluations are sent out to the students automatically on the set evaluation start date. The default start date is determined by the faculties (NAT, TECH and HE choose fixed periods at the end of the teaching period, while BSS starts evaluations seven days before the last scheduled teaching day.
AR does not automatically send the questionnaire to students on all courses, but the lecturer/course coordinator will make sure that the relevant evaluations are sent out.
After the evaluation, and by no later than after the exam, a brief comment on the results is prepared. Together with the evaluation results, this comment forms the basis for a dialogue between the relevant stakeholders, in which decisions regarding follow-up actions are made. Furthermore, pursuant to the Danish act on transparency and openness in education (lov om gennemsigtighed og åbenhed), students must be informed about the results of teaching evaluations, at least when the results are published.
Teaching staff, course coordinators and management (as determined by the faculty, e.g. director of studies, head of department etc.) automatically receive a report with the course results on the day after the evaluation is completed. The overall evaluation results for a single degree programme are collated in a report made available to management at the end of each semester. The degree programme report is used for discussions at subject level and board of studies level.
The teaching evaluations are used as a compulsory indicator in the annual status review and degree programme evaluation, thereby elevating follow-up to the consolidating and cross-organisational level.
All faculties have established a practice for informal interim evaluations. All faculties are invited to use the evaluation system for interim evaluations.
