Position paper on teaching evaluation (UE) at ZHdK
Position paper on teaching evaluation (UE) at ZHdK
Position paper on teaching evaluation (UE) at ZHdK
February 1, 2019
February 1, 2019
February 1, 2019
Position Paper
Position Paper
VERSO
VERSO
VERSO
At the VERSO semester assembly FS19-1 on February 28, 2019, a workshop on the UE was conducted with the 29 participants (five to six students from all departments) at the ZHdK. This workshop primarily aimed to gather thoughts and experiences regarding the UE that had already been implemented and to capture an initial opinion of the students. Although the UE has been implemented at the ZHdK since the academic year 2014/15 under an overarching concept, VERSO has so far only dealt with the topic to a limited extent. Consequently, VERSO has been unable to adequately represent the interests of the students within the committees responsible for the UE. The workshop also served to systematically discuss specific questions and to form a student opinion on aspects of the UE that had not yet received much attention in the students' everyday lives. The workshop lasted about 60 minutes. After an introductory round, the students divided into five tables with different topics, which included: harmonization, transparency, binding, governance, and participation. At all tables, students first discussed their experiences with the UE and, if available, their experiences with UE in other educational institutions. The discussions were then narrowed down by one of the aforementioned topics, discussed along two contrasting statements, and ideas, measures, or further questions to be clarified were formulated. Finally, the workshop was opened in a closing plenary to explore the role of students in future UEs. This document is a summary of the five table protocols as well as the closing plenary. It will serve VERSO for further collaboration with the 2 dossier commission teaching and the commission Teaching & Learning in the form of a position paper.
At the VERSO semester assembly FS19-1 on February 28, 2019, a workshop on the UE was conducted with the 29 participants (five to six students from all departments) at the ZHdK. This workshop primarily aimed to gather thoughts and experiences regarding the UE that had already been implemented and to capture an initial opinion of the students. Although the UE has been implemented at the ZHdK since the academic year 2014/15 under an overarching concept, VERSO has so far only dealt with the topic to a limited extent. Consequently, VERSO has been unable to adequately represent the interests of the students within the committees responsible for the UE. The workshop also served to systematically discuss specific questions and to form a student opinion on aspects of the UE that had not yet received much attention in the students' everyday lives. The workshop lasted about 60 minutes. After an introductory round, the students divided into five tables with different topics, which included: harmonization, transparency, binding, governance, and participation. At all tables, students first discussed their experiences with the UE and, if available, their experiences with UE in other educational institutions. The discussions were then narrowed down by one of the aforementioned topics, discussed along two contrasting statements, and ideas, measures, or further questions to be clarified were formulated. Finally, the workshop was opened in a closing plenary to explore the role of students in future UEs. This document is a summary of the five table protocols as well as the closing plenary. It will serve VERSO for further collaboration with the 2 dossier commission teaching and the commission Teaching & Learning in the form of a position paper.
At the VERSO semester assembly FS19-1 on February 28, 2019, a workshop on the UE was conducted with the 29 participants (five to six students from all departments) at the ZHdK. This workshop primarily aimed to gather thoughts and experiences regarding the UE that had already been implemented and to capture an initial opinion of the students. Although the UE has been implemented at the ZHdK since the academic year 2014/15 under an overarching concept, VERSO has so far only dealt with the topic to a limited extent. Consequently, VERSO has been unable to adequately represent the interests of the students within the committees responsible for the UE. The workshop also served to systematically discuss specific questions and to form a student opinion on aspects of the UE that had not yet received much attention in the students' everyday lives. The workshop lasted about 60 minutes. After an introductory round, the students divided into five tables with different topics, which included: harmonization, transparency, binding, governance, and participation. At all tables, students first discussed their experiences with the UE and, if available, their experiences with UE in other educational institutions. The discussions were then narrowed down by one of the aforementioned topics, discussed along two contrasting statements, and ideas, measures, or further questions to be clarified were formulated. Finally, the workshop was opened in a closing plenary to explore the role of students in future UEs. This document is a summary of the five table protocols as well as the closing plenary. It will serve VERSO for further collaboration with the 2 dossier commission teaching and the commission Teaching & Learning in the form of a position paper.
Experiences at ZHdK
The image presented at the semester meeting was highly heterogeneous and partly
ambivalent. Some students reported having conducted several UEs,
while others had never been in contact with UEs. Experiences were equally varied
when the forms of UEs were discussed: Only a few students were familiar with the 'official'
forms that instructors can create using the questionnaire generator. Partially
evaluations were done electronically via Paul (with this form being viewed significantly negatively). The fewest students knew that UEs are institutionalized at ZHdK and that the evaluation processes and information pathways are regulated by a higher-level concept. According to the statements of the students, there were significant differences among the departments regarding the quantity and quality of UEs: adequate and serious UEs in DKV and DDK (with significant criticism from dance), neither one nor the other in DMU, and ambivalent statements in DDE and DKM.
The following points were mentioned multiple times and clearly by various students and can therefore be summarized in a list:
The website for UEs (unterrichtsentwicklung.zhdk.ch) and the possible forms
of UEs are largely unknown to the students.So far, no noticeable effect has been attributed to the UEs.
In rare cases are results from the UEs fed back into the surveyed courses.
Power dynamics shape the evaluation culture, especially in smaller teaching formats such as individual teaching (instructors assess student performance after a UE or later sit on examination boards). The students expressed concern about giving critical feedback in non-anonymized evaluation situations.
Often the questions of the UEs are imprecise, purely rhetorical, and poorly differentiated. UEs are regarded as important by the students, and teaching time should be allocated for them.
Experiences from other universitiesIn Vienna (University of Music), one receives an envelope with an evaluation sheet and allocates points. This envelope can be submitted anonymously in a mailbox.
At other schools, UEs are conducted via online surveys, and the data is processed anonymously. One has two to three weeks to complete the UE.
Experiences at ZHdK
The image presented at the semester meeting was highly heterogeneous and partly
ambivalent. Some students reported having conducted several UEs,
while others had never been in contact with UEs. Experiences were equally varied
when the forms of UEs were discussed: Only a few students were familiar with the 'official'
forms that instructors can create using the questionnaire generator. Partially
evaluations were done electronically via Paul (with this form being viewed significantly negatively). The fewest students knew that UEs are institutionalized at ZHdK and that the evaluation processes and information pathways are regulated by a higher-level concept. According to the statements of the students, there were significant differences among the departments regarding the quantity and quality of UEs: adequate and serious UEs in DKV and DDK (with significant criticism from dance), neither one nor the other in DMU, and ambivalent statements in DDE and DKM.
The following points were mentioned multiple times and clearly by various students and can therefore be summarized in a list:
The website for UEs (unterrichtsentwicklung.zhdk.ch) and the possible forms
of UEs are largely unknown to the students.So far, no noticeable effect has been attributed to the UEs.
In rare cases are results from the UEs fed back into the surveyed courses.
Power dynamics shape the evaluation culture, especially in smaller teaching formats such as individual teaching (instructors assess student performance after a UE or later sit on examination boards). The students expressed concern about giving critical feedback in non-anonymized evaluation situations.
Often the questions of the UEs are imprecise, purely rhetorical, and poorly differentiated. UEs are regarded as important by the students, and teaching time should be allocated for them.
Experiences from other universitiesIn Vienna (University of Music), one receives an envelope with an evaluation sheet and allocates points. This envelope can be submitted anonymously in a mailbox.
At other schools, UEs are conducted via online surveys, and the data is processed anonymously. One has two to three weeks to complete the UE.
Harmonization
For the specific teaching situation to be evaluated, harmonization was not considered a necessary measure, as the teaching situations ideally should be evaluated based on their own (due to inevitably differing group dynamics, unplanned course developments, spontaneous teaching forms) and subject-specific (different subject didactics, focuses on process or outcome, etc.), consequently singular criteria. Teaching and learning forms could not be classified as inherently 'good' and 'bad' based on standardized criteria – to that extent, responses with harmonized questionnaires and harmonized questions would only be comparably meaningful under great reservation than before. Consequently, the students looked critically at the aspect of harmonization. A stronger harmonization of the units would only make sense under the condition of a higher gain in knowledge and in terms of the quality development of teaching at the entire ZHdK. However, this possibly higher gain in knowledge would need to be demonstrated or at least conceptually noted and scientifically substantiated before the students would support the plan for harmonization. The students recognized that the idea of a common understanding for a higher education didactics of the arts has great potential and could significantly contribute to a culture of togetherness at ZHdK.
A minimal harmonization of the units with respect to recognizability was clearly affirmed by the students: comparable processes (timing, communication, etc.), uniform forms (layout, design, logo, etc.), whether analog or digital, would help students to classify the evaluation processes. The students would like to know when they are in an evaluation situation regulated by a higher-level concept valid for the entire ZHdK. Finally, the students expressed a preference for written media.
Harmonization
For the specific teaching situation to be evaluated, harmonization was not considered a necessary measure, as the teaching situations ideally should be evaluated based on their own (due to inevitably differing group dynamics, unplanned course developments, spontaneous teaching forms) and subject-specific (different subject didactics, focuses on process or outcome, etc.), consequently singular criteria. Teaching and learning forms could not be classified as inherently 'good' and 'bad' based on standardized criteria – to that extent, responses with harmonized questionnaires and harmonized questions would only be comparably meaningful under great reservation than before. Consequently, the students looked critically at the aspect of harmonization. A stronger harmonization of the units would only make sense under the condition of a higher gain in knowledge and in terms of the quality development of teaching at the entire ZHdK. However, this possibly higher gain in knowledge would need to be demonstrated or at least conceptually noted and scientifically substantiated before the students would support the plan for harmonization. The students recognized that the idea of a common understanding for a higher education didactics of the arts has great potential and could significantly contribute to a culture of togetherness at ZHdK.
A minimal harmonization of the units with respect to recognizability was clearly affirmed by the students: comparable processes (timing, communication, etc.), uniform forms (layout, design, logo, etc.), whether analog or digital, would help students to classify the evaluation processes. The students would like to know when they are in an evaluation situation regulated by a higher-level concept valid for the entire ZHdK. Finally, the students expressed a preference for written media.
Transparency
The criterion of transparency was rated as very important by the students. On one hand, the students demanded to be introduced to the evaluation situation through transparent communication. During the survey in the semester assembly, the students recalled having already filled out questions about courses in writing or orally. However, they were not informed in the respective situations that these are a) institutionally prescribed and b) their results are passed on. It was precisely this information asymmetry within the evaluation situation that the students found strange in their role as "the respondents." On the other hand, the students discussed whether and in what way results should be fed back into the surveyed courses – the students expressed a strong interest in knowing the information forwarded by the instructors from a course evaluation.
Transparency was also discussed regarding the selection of evaluation questions. The students wished that some of the questions to be evaluated would be predetermined and possibly originate from the students of a course. Another point of criticism in the context of transparency was expressed by the students regarding the UE website. It is difficult to access, and some areas of the site are not made available to students. The concept for the UE is not accessible to students.
The students expressed the thought that dedicated positions for the UE could be created instead of leaving the feedback processes to the program and department heads. A dedicated position responsible for the UE could ensure more transparency, especially in the feedback processes. Finally, the students discussed whether the annual evaluation report addressed to the university management should be made publicly accessible after a useful period.
Binding Nature
The criterion of binding nature was discussed by the students in great dependence on the criterion of transparency. Increased transparency in the process leads to a higher binding nature. From the students' perspective, systems where UE takes place online and the completion is mandatory – for example, when a module is counted as "attended" only if the corresponding UE has been filled out – could also be possible. The students noted that written media are characterized by more binding nature. In oral UE, discussions must therefore at least be documented in writing and made accessible. Returning the results to the students also increases the binding character of the UE as well as a sense of the effectiveness of expressing opinions.
Governance
Under the discussed criterion of "Governance," the students dealt with the following aspects: Responsibility and accountability, effectiveness and efficiency of processes through binding organizational structures.
The students considered the status quo to be sensible, where the responsibility for the UE is primarily located within the departments. The departments functioned extremely differently and varied greatly according to discipline, learning and teaching methods, and feedback cultures. However, there needs to be stronger functions in the departments with more competencies and thus influence over the implementation of the UE. The students saw a problem in that, for example, in the Teaching & Learning Commission, there are no higher management positions and only a few members from department conferences. Thus, the knowledge of the UE is spatially and personally separated from the decision-making powers over the implementation of the UE, which seems problematic under the current conditions. Furthermore, a stronger collaboration with the quality responsible individuals in the departments, as well as an inter-departmental exchange on UE and the handling of UE within the various departments, is desirable.
Student Participation / Engagement (from VERSO) in the UE
The students expressed the desire to grant VERSO a right to comment on the annual report to the university management regarding the UE. The consultation could, for example, take place via the semester assembly of VERSO. By integrating a consultation through VERSO into the process of the UE, the involvement and identification of students with the UE could be improved. VERSO could propose annual measures to improve the processes from the students' perspective. The students could also envision entirely new formats of UE, such as a "Peer Visit," where students from other degree programs physically observe a course and then fill out the UE from an "outside perspective." VERSO could take on a coordinating role within the UE and generate student-related questions for the UE in collaboration with the Teaching & Learning Commission.
The Role of Students Within the UE
The students were aware that they act as respondents within the UE but unanimously desired a more active role within the processes. This role should be constructive, proactive, binding, demanding, and innovative. The students identified a challenge in balancing transparency and anonymity in the potential development of their role.
Transparency
The criterion of transparency was rated as very important by the students. On one hand, the students demanded to be introduced to the evaluation situation through transparent communication. During the survey in the semester assembly, the students recalled having already filled out questions about courses in writing or orally. However, they were not informed in the respective situations that these are a) institutionally prescribed and b) their results are passed on. It was precisely this information asymmetry within the evaluation situation that the students found strange in their role as "the respondents." On the other hand, the students discussed whether and in what way results should be fed back into the surveyed courses – the students expressed a strong interest in knowing the information forwarded by the instructors from a course evaluation.
Transparency was also discussed regarding the selection of evaluation questions. The students wished that some of the questions to be evaluated would be predetermined and possibly originate from the students of a course. Another point of criticism in the context of transparency was expressed by the students regarding the UE website. It is difficult to access, and some areas of the site are not made available to students. The concept for the UE is not accessible to students.
The students expressed the thought that dedicated positions for the UE could be created instead of leaving the feedback processes to the program and department heads. A dedicated position responsible for the UE could ensure more transparency, especially in the feedback processes. Finally, the students discussed whether the annual evaluation report addressed to the university management should be made publicly accessible after a useful period.
Binding Nature
The criterion of binding nature was discussed by the students in great dependence on the criterion of transparency. Increased transparency in the process leads to a higher binding nature. From the students' perspective, systems where UE takes place online and the completion is mandatory – for example, when a module is counted as "attended" only if the corresponding UE has been filled out – could also be possible. The students noted that written media are characterized by more binding nature. In oral UE, discussions must therefore at least be documented in writing and made accessible. Returning the results to the students also increases the binding character of the UE as well as a sense of the effectiveness of expressing opinions.
Governance
Under the discussed criterion of "Governance," the students dealt with the following aspects: Responsibility and accountability, effectiveness and efficiency of processes through binding organizational structures.
The students considered the status quo to be sensible, where the responsibility for the UE is primarily located within the departments. The departments functioned extremely differently and varied greatly according to discipline, learning and teaching methods, and feedback cultures. However, there needs to be stronger functions in the departments with more competencies and thus influence over the implementation of the UE. The students saw a problem in that, for example, in the Teaching & Learning Commission, there are no higher management positions and only a few members from department conferences. Thus, the knowledge of the UE is spatially and personally separated from the decision-making powers over the implementation of the UE, which seems problematic under the current conditions. Furthermore, a stronger collaboration with the quality responsible individuals in the departments, as well as an inter-departmental exchange on UE and the handling of UE within the various departments, is desirable.
Student Participation / Engagement (from VERSO) in the UE
The students expressed the desire to grant VERSO a right to comment on the annual report to the university management regarding the UE. The consultation could, for example, take place via the semester assembly of VERSO. By integrating a consultation through VERSO into the process of the UE, the involvement and identification of students with the UE could be improved. VERSO could propose annual measures to improve the processes from the students' perspective. The students could also envision entirely new formats of UE, such as a "Peer Visit," where students from other degree programs physically observe a course and then fill out the UE from an "outside perspective." VERSO could take on a coordinating role within the UE and generate student-related questions for the UE in collaboration with the Teaching & Learning Commission.
The Role of Students Within the UE
The students were aware that they act as respondents within the UE but unanimously desired a more active role within the processes. This role should be constructive, proactive, binding, demanding, and innovative. The students identified a challenge in balancing transparency and anonymity in the potential development of their role.
Transparency
The criterion of transparency was rated as very important by the students. On one hand, the students demanded to be introduced to the evaluation situation through transparent communication. During the survey in the semester assembly, the students recalled having already filled out questions about courses in writing or orally. However, they were not informed in the respective situations that these are a) institutionally prescribed and b) their results are passed on. It was precisely this information asymmetry within the evaluation situation that the students found strange in their role as "the respondents." On the other hand, the students discussed whether and in what way results should be fed back into the surveyed courses – the students expressed a strong interest in knowing the information forwarded by the instructors from a course evaluation.
Transparency was also discussed regarding the selection of evaluation questions. The students wished that some of the questions to be evaluated would be predetermined and possibly originate from the students of a course. Another point of criticism in the context of transparency was expressed by the students regarding the UE website. It is difficult to access, and some areas of the site are not made available to students. The concept for the UE is not accessible to students.
The students expressed the thought that dedicated positions for the UE could be created instead of leaving the feedback processes to the program and department heads. A dedicated position responsible for the UE could ensure more transparency, especially in the feedback processes. Finally, the students discussed whether the annual evaluation report addressed to the university management should be made publicly accessible after a useful period.
Binding Nature
The criterion of binding nature was discussed by the students in great dependence on the criterion of transparency. Increased transparency in the process leads to a higher binding nature. From the students' perspective, systems where UE takes place online and the completion is mandatory – for example, when a module is counted as "attended" only if the corresponding UE has been filled out – could also be possible. The students noted that written media are characterized by more binding nature. In oral UE, discussions must therefore at least be documented in writing and made accessible. Returning the results to the students also increases the binding character of the UE as well as a sense of the effectiveness of expressing opinions.
Governance
Under the discussed criterion of "Governance," the students dealt with the following aspects: Responsibility and accountability, effectiveness and efficiency of processes through binding organizational structures.
The students considered the status quo to be sensible, where the responsibility for the UE is primarily located within the departments. The departments functioned extremely differently and varied greatly according to discipline, learning and teaching methods, and feedback cultures. However, there needs to be stronger functions in the departments with more competencies and thus influence over the implementation of the UE. The students saw a problem in that, for example, in the Teaching & Learning Commission, there are no higher management positions and only a few members from department conferences. Thus, the knowledge of the UE is spatially and personally separated from the decision-making powers over the implementation of the UE, which seems problematic under the current conditions. Furthermore, a stronger collaboration with the quality responsible individuals in the departments, as well as an inter-departmental exchange on UE and the handling of UE within the various departments, is desirable.
Student Participation / Engagement (from VERSO) in the UE
The students expressed the desire to grant VERSO a right to comment on the annual report to the university management regarding the UE. The consultation could, for example, take place via the semester assembly of VERSO. By integrating a consultation through VERSO into the process of the UE, the involvement and identification of students with the UE could be improved. VERSO could propose annual measures to improve the processes from the students' perspective. The students could also envision entirely new formats of UE, such as a "Peer Visit," where students from other degree programs physically observe a course and then fill out the UE from an "outside perspective." VERSO could take on a coordinating role within the UE and generate student-related questions for the UE in collaboration with the Teaching & Learning Commission.
The Role of Students Within the UE
The students were aware that they act as respondents within the UE but unanimously desired a more active role within the processes. This role should be constructive, proactive, binding, demanding, and innovative. The students identified a challenge in balancing transparency and anonymity in the potential development of their role.
More articles
Nov 24
Newsletter
General Assembly, statements, information event and more
Sep 15
Newsletter
EP27, stabilization initiative, question students, etc...
Apr 1
Newsletter
Stabilization initiative, tuition fees and more
Found what you're looking for?
Quicklinks
Newsletter
All ZHdK students receive the newsletter automatically. If you do not receive the newsletter, you are welcome to subscribe to it here.
Found what you're looking for?
Quicklinks
Newsletter
All ZHdK students receive the newsletter automatically. If you do not receive the newsletter, you are welcome to subscribe to it here.
Found what you're looking for?
Quicklinks
Newsletter
All ZHdK students receive the newsletter automatically. If you do not receive the newsletter, you are welcome to subscribe to it here.
Nov 24
Newsletter
General Assembly, statements, information event and more
Sep 15
Newsletter
EP27, stabilization initiative, question students, etc...
More articles
Nov 24
Newsletter
General Assembly, statements, information event and more
Sep 15
Newsletter
EP27, stabilization initiative, question students, etc...