Guidelines for course evaluations at the undergraduate and graduate levels at the Faculty of Science and Technology
Introduction
These guidelines, applicable at the Faculty of Science and Technology, supplement the guidelines for course evaluations established by the Vice-Chancellor on 9 March 2010 (UFV 2010/307) and replace TEKNAT 2011/96. The Quality and Evaluation Unit has also published recommendations for course evaluations on the Staff Portal [Medarbetarportalen]. Course evaluations mainly serve two functions:
- give the students the opportunity to present their experiences and opinions about the course in a structured manner,
- serve as a basis for quality assurance and quality enhancement. This relates to development of both the individual course and the overall programme.
The course evaluation results consist of three parts:
- response compilation,
- student completion report,
- course report.
Responsibility
The department offering the course is responsible for designing and implementing course evaluations for all courses, and for compiling them and making the results available.
Design
The questionnaire shall include questions applicable throughout the faculty as instructed by the Educational Board of Science and the Educational Board of Engineering. Other questions may also be formulated in dialogue with other stakeholders (for
example, the programme coordinator and student representatives).
Response compilation consists of compiled statistics from the answers in the questionnaire and reviewed open-ended responses. The student completion report contains statistics about the course (number of students registered in the course, number of graduates, and number of students who passed during the course's regular examination session(s)).
The response compilation and student completion report must be presented for the programme as a whole if the programme has 10 or more respondents. All student responses shall be included in a compilation.
The course report shall contain teacher views and a summary of the students’ views. The report shall present the strengths and weaknesses of the course, along with suggestions for possible actions.
Implementation
The course evaluations shall be anonymous. In addition, formative course evaluations (which may be anonymous or not) may be carried out if so desired.
The response period for the questionnaire shall run from at least 2 weeks before to at least 1 week after the end of the course instance.
Course evaluation for degree projects and individual courses shall be conducted at least once per semester.
Compilation and review of questionnaire responses
Employee and student privacy shall be safeguarded in all work with course evaluations. For this reason, open-ended responses may need to be anonymised and edited for offensive comments. When reviewing open-ended responses, one must keep in mind that details in the individual responses often increase opportunities for development. Over-summarisation should therefore be avoided.
If the individual reviewing the open-ended responses (this cannot be a student and should not be the teacher of the course instance in question) sees signs of problems or issues which need to be addressed, such as abusive treatment of students, the reviewer should immediately contact the relevant director of studies or head of department and make the unedited openended responses available to them.
Availability
The course evaluation results shall be made available within no more than 6 working weeks after the end of the course period (excluding public holidays and semester breaks). For degree projects and individual courses, the deadline is no later than 6 weeks after the end of the semester (excluding public holidays and semester breaks).
The course evaluation results (all three parts, except the openended responses) shall be made available to students currently or previously registered in the course in question (in the relevant learning management system). The course evaluation results of the past two years shall be available in this manner. In addition, all three parts (including the open-ended responses) shall be made available to programme coordinators and educational boards (on the Staff Portal [Medarbetarportalen]). The relevant director of studies shall be given access to the course report.
Feedback
The party delegated by the head of department, e.g. the director of studies, shall provide feedback to the teachers to promote their personal development and development of the course.
Early in the course, the students of the subsequent course session instance shall be informed of the outcome of the previous course evaluation(s) and on what actions, if any, have been or will be taken.
Faculty-wide course evaluation questions
On 6 October 2020, the Educational Board of Engineering and the Educational Board of Science decided to establish faculty-wide course evaluation questions in accordance with the proposal below
(TEKNAT 2019/239).
The Council for Educational Development at the Faculty of Science and Technology (TUR) was commissioned with drawing up proposals for course evaluation questions for the faculty. The questions are intended to serve as a foundation for teachers, directors of study, programme
coordinators and other educational leaders. The proposed standard package is intended as a “minimum” set of questions to use when departments or teachers have no special need or reason to
use other questions.
In the event of major course development, TUR recommends the use of more specific questions. A good and proven example is CEQ (from LTH, Lund University Faculty of Engineering)1, and another is LEQ (from KTH Royal Institute of Technology)2. A more local example is Uppsala University’s question bank.3, however this does not provide guidance in evaluating the responses. It is also possible to use parts of other question packages. For example, if you want more detailed or
more specific answers about how clear objectives and assessment criteria have been, CEQ questions 1, 6, 13 and 25 are very useful. The same can be applied for other CEQ scales (good teaching, comprehension-orientated examination, appropriate workload).
According to the guidelines, responsibility for course evaluations lies with the departments. Thus, the departments should be able to choose which questions are used in the course evaluations of the
respective courses. In some cases, the departments already have well-developed course evaluation questions, e.g. for special course types.
It should be noted that all responses show students’ subjective perceptions, and must be interpreted
in their context. For example, a course being perceived as “very difficult” may be something both
students and teachers appreciate and strive for in relation to one course, while for another it may
signal that the course is not working as intended.
1 See https://www.ceq.lth.se/info/dokument/filer/CEQ_hogskolepedagogik.pdf
2 See https://intra.kth.se/en/utbildning/utveckling-och-hogskolepedagogik/stodmaterial/sca/leq-1.887751
3 See https://mp.uu.se/web/info/undervisa/kvalitet-och-utvardering/kursvardstod/kursvardering
Standard package
TUR proposes the following questions as a standard package for all courses at the faculty, unless departments or teachers have special reasons to use other questions. However, question 1 should always be included in the course survey. Questions 1–6 should allow open-ended responses with the prompt “Please elaborate on your answer” or similar, as such questions often provide valuable responses even if response rate is low. The description for each question should be shown when the question is asked (in a prompt or the like).
Naturally, use of the questions in the standard package should be evaluated, and the package should be developed as needed.
- Overall, I am satisfied with this course.
Description: Here you are asked how well you think the course worked in relation to everything from teacher, content, forms of instruction, and examination to scheduling.
Response alternatives: Scale of one to five, where “1 = Disagree completely” and “5 = Agree completely”.
Analysis: The responses indicate how well the course worked from the student's perspective. In some cases, a low score can be expected. In others, it is unexpected. If the score is low,
comments and an explanation should be provided in the course report. - How would you rate the course’s degree of difficulty?
Description: Here, you are asked how difficult you think the course was, e.g. taking requirements and level into consideration.
Response alternatives: Scale of one to five, where “1 = Far too easy” and “5 = Far too hard”.
Analysis: The responses give an indication of the requirements and level of the course. It is probably relevant to report both mean/median and distribution. If the score is low or high,
comments and an explanation should be provided in the course report. - How did you perceive the course's workload in relation to its size (number of credits)?
Description: Here, you are asked how you perceived the workload, i.e. how much total time you invested in relation to full-time. Example: a course worth 5 credits during a period corresponds to 1/3 of full-time.
Response alternatives: Scale of one to five, where “1 = Far too little” and “5 = Far too large”.
Analysis: Like the last question, but focusing specifically on workload. Note that the responses do not give absolute measures, but instead show the student’s subjective opinion. Open-ended responses can add an extra dimension to the response score. - I took a great deal of responsibility for my own learning during the course.
Description: Here, we want to know to what extent you took responsibility for your own
learning, or if you e.g. relied more on the efforts of others.
Response alternatives: Scale of one to five, where “1 = Disagree completely” and “5 = Agree completely”.
Analysis: Generally speaking, a higher score is better and indicates active students. If the score is low, the reason should be analysed (e.g. forms of instruction, student group and maturity may play a role). - I contributed to other students’ learning during the course.
Description: Here, we want to know to what extent you took responsibility for the learning of others. Have you, for example, taken an active role when studying with others, doing lab work
with others, etc?
Response alternatives: Scale of one to five, where “1 = Disagree completely” and “5 = Agree completely”.
Analysis: If the score is low, it may indicate that the deeper opportunity for learning that typically exists when you help others learn has been lacking, e.g. because the students did not have the opportunity to study together. It may be necessary to develop the forms of instruction and make them more activating. - I feel that students were treated well in the course (e.g. as regards equal treatment or programme affiliation) and that no one was put at a disadvantage by the organisation,
content or performance of the teaching.
Description: Equal treatment includes e.g. gender, transgender identity or expression, ethnicity,
religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation or age.
Response alternatives: Scale of one to five, where “1 = Disagree completely” and “5 = Agree
completely”.
Analysis: Here, all students are given the same opportunity to report misconduct, regardless of programme affiliation. - What do you think was the best thing about this course?
Description: Here, you can highlight efforts, characteristics or parts of the course you thought were good.
Response alternatives: Open-ended response.
Analysis: The responses provide an opportunity to highlight appreciated characteristics or parts of the course. Teachers can get positive feedback, which is often much needed and can provide
insights on strengths to focus and build on as well as ideas for what can be spread to other courses. - Please provide constructive suggestions for course development.
Description: With your help, the course can be made better, and something that is already good can be made even more prominent/effective.
Response alternatives: Open-ended response.
Analysis: The students are given an opportunity to contribute to course development, e.g. how something should be changed for the better, or how something already good could be made more prominent/effective.