Course evaluations at the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences (SUND)
Below, you can read about course evaluations at SUND.
Course evaluations are used to:
- Enhance students’ learning and ensure that they benefit from the teaching
- Enable regular quality enhancement and quality assurance of the teaching
- Give course leaders input on improving the courses
- Give students influence on their study programmes
- Give study boards, heads of studies and heads of department (including teaching committees) a structured overview of the quality of the study programmes and the teaching
- Share best practice
- Ensure that SUND complies with current legislation, requirements in connection with institutional accreditation, UCPH guidelines etc.
At UCPH, course evaluations are based on the following principles:
- Evaluations are carried out to enhance the quality of the teaching
- Evaluations are carried out to ensure that the students have good learning opportunities that will help them complete their studies
- The evaluation process is part of the lecturers’ commitment to developing their teaching and contributes to the positive experiences made in the classroom being shared
- The evaluation process is not too time-consuming for the people involved
- The evaluation data gathered can be used for follow-up purposes and publication
- Those in charge of the evaluations can choose between evaluation models.
Click here to read the UCPH guidelines on course evaluations.
SUND also works according to the following principles:
- Course leaders play a key role in the evaluation process and must provide a written response to the evaluation results.
- Students are involved in a dialogue about the evaluation results and follow-up.
- A comprehensive system is prepared for drawing up evaluation plans, reporting, follow-up and publication of the results. The system must be described in writing, and it must be ensured that the process can be documented.
- All courses are always evaluated the first time they are offered, and thereafter at least every other time. Supervision processes and projects carried out outside the University are evaluated after the supervision or project is completed.
SUND offers two evaluation models. Those in charge of the evaluations under the individual study programmes can choose which model to use.
Survey-based evaluation
The survey model involves sending out standardised questionnaires to all students enrolled on the course. From 2022, the course leaders may supplement the standard questionnaire with up to five closed and two open questions. Survey-based evaluation allows all students to give their opinions anonymously and evaluate the teaching.
Students receive a link to the questionnaire in their UCPH email account at the end of the course. Students who have not completed the questionnaire are sent two reminders.
Supervision processes and projects completed outside the University are evaluated via survey. Students receive a link to the questionnaire in their UCPH email account after the supervision process or project is completed. Students who have not completed the questionnaire are sent two reminders.
Dialogue-based evaluation
The dialogue model is based on a structured dialogue between students, course leaders and the programme management which takes place at separate dialogue meetings. The dialogue meetings are held once the entire semester is completed, as the overall structure and progression of the semesters are included in the discussions. The students elect class representatives who attend the dialogue meetings and speak on behalf of the students.
The dialogue-based evaluation model is intended to ensure that both students and lecturers commit to the evaluation, and to ensure a solution-oriented follow-up on the evaluations.
SUND uses different questionnaires for the course evaluations:
- Questionnaire for the bachelor’s and master's programmes.
- Questionnaire for the professional master's programmes.
In addition, the course coordinators have the opportunity to add up to five closed and two open course-specific questions. See examples of course-specific questions.
SUND’s Department of Student Affairs (AUS) prepares an annual evaluation plan for all the Faculty’s study programmes. The plan is drawn up in May/June for the coming academic year. The plan states:
- what is evaluated (courses, supervision processes and projects completed outside the University)
- when they are evaluated (block, semester)
- how they are evaluated (evaluation method).
The evaluation plan is given final approval by the relevant study board.
New courses are always evaluated the first time they are offered. Thereafter, as a general rule, courses are evaluated every other time they are offered. However, a course is evaluated again the next time it is offered if the previous evaluation gave rise to follow-up with the involvement of the study board (category C).
At the beginning of the semester, the Department of Student Affairs sends an email to the course leaders asking them to set aside time for the students to complete the evaluation in the final class of the course. This helps ensure an increased response rate and even more representative data.
The course leader is responsible for following up on the evaluation at course level (if relevant in collaboration with the department’s teaching committee). The broader responsibility lies with the study board and the head of studies.
- The course leader will follow up on what worked particularly well on the course and where there may be a need for improvement. The follow-up is based on the evaluation results from the dialogue meetings and the survey-based evaluation (supplemented by dialogue with the students and any co-lecturers). The course leader prepares a concise written summary for the head of studies, the study board, the head of department and any teaching committee.
- The study board discusses the evaluation results from both the dialogue-based and the survey-based evaluations as well as the feedback from the course leaders and teaching committees. Each spring, the head of studies summarises the results of the previous academic year’s course evaluations in either a programme report or a programme evaluation.
For the survey model, the evaluation results for each course are collated in a report, anonymously and without qualitative comments. There must be a minimum of five responses in order for a report to be published. This is to ensure anonymity.
For the dialogue model, minutes from the dialogue meetings are published. The dialogue meetings are held between student representatives, the course leaders and the programme management. The minutes must be suitable for publication. This means that they should not be minutes in the traditional sense, but rather summaries of the input discussed at the meeting. The minutes must not include sensitive personal data.
SUND publishes evaluation results twice a year:
- No later than 15 March: results/data from the autumn semester
- No later than 1 October: results/data from the spring semester.