EVALUATION OF THE TEACHING PROCESS Marta Ljubešić National Council for Higher Education Zagreb -...

EVALUATION OF THE TEACHING PROCESS

Marta LjubešićNational Council for Higher EducationZagreb - Croatia  

Feedback from the student survey conducted at the

University of Zagreb

Chronology of the student survey’s

implementation at the University of Zagreb

      up to 1997 – conducted by teachers on their own initiative

      from 15 January, 1997 the University Statute demands that the quality of the teaching process be monitored

      in 1997 a uniform questionnaire was applied at most faculties for the first time

      autumn 1998: the implementation of the pilot project – survey done among the 2nd year students in the academic year 1998/1999, having been statistically analysed within one central institution, the results were processed in Excel and then returned to the faculties for interpretation      in 1999 – the questionnaire evaluation done by the faculties and the University Board for Survey Implementation

Survey results

      the pilot project included 28 out of 33 faculties

      249 teachers were evaluated in terms of their teaching quality

      5206 students answered questions about the quality of lectures and exercises

      students’ participation varied between 10 and 90%

      students filled in the questionnaires responsibly and less than 1% of the answers were illegible

Lecture attendance

53,7

30,7

14,6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

regular occasional rare

Lecture attendance (%)

Lectures clearly

4630,9

12,6 5,7 3,80

1020304050

Very goodGood

Sufficient

Insufficient

Cannot evaluate

Lectures clearly (%)

Interesting style of presentation

34,329,9

19,211

4,20

10

20

30

40

Very goodGood

Sufficient

Insufficient

Cannot evaluate

Interesting style of presentation (%)

Encourages (independent) student work

23,2

30,8

20,813,5

10,4

05

101520253035

Very goodGood

Sufficient

Insufficient

Cannot evaluate

Encourages (independent) student work (%)

Ready for discussion with students

59

21,87,7 3,4 7,1

0204060

Very good Good

Sufficient

Insufficient

Cannot evaluate

Ready for discussion with students (%)

Treats students with respect

59

21,8

7,73,4 7,1

0102030405060

Very good Good Sufficient Insufficient Cannotevaluate

Treats students with respect (%)

Lectures – Regularity and Punctuality

81,5

13,51,5 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Regular and on time

Regular with delayIrregular

Extremely irregular

Lectures - Regularity and Punctuality (%)

Available literature for covered material

34,5

21,8 18,1

0

10

20

30

40

Very good Good Insufficient

Available literature for covered material (%)

Would you recommend this lecturer to other students?

39,9 45,1

11,3 3,70

20

40

60

Yes, definitely

Probably yes

Probably notNot at all

Would you recommend this lecturer to other students? (%)

Survey evaluation comprised:

      analysis of the answers obtained from the faculties

      evaluation of the survey’s contents and the “mechanisms” of its implementation

      analysis of negative and positive points of the survey implementation

The faculties gave answers to the following questions:

      What has been done with the results of the survey conducted in the academic year 1998/99?      What is perceived as the main barrier to the effective implementation of the student survey at your faculty?      How do you check the quality of teaching at your faculty?

      19 faculties answered the above questions

      a majority of answers were positive

      a single faculty gave direct feedback to the teachers insisting on the introduction of changes

      the results could have been used more appropriately

Evaluation of the survey’s contents and the “mechanisms” of its implementation

      contents – no objections

      in the meantime the conditions for cheaper and more effective implementation of the survey have been established – Carnet, on line

Analysis of negative points:

      lack of tradition in this type of evaluation of teachers      inadequate and uneven understanding of the survey’s final aims      doubt that the survey has any effect at all since even better ideas fail in their realisation      fear that the results could be used against the students and the teachers

      negative attitude of teachers towards evaluation (partly based on the fact that “public opinion” was manipulated in the past)      opinion that the survey examines superficial popularity of teachers and not the quality of their teaching      irresponsible and superficial interpretation of results, which makes manipulations possible

      great differences among the faculties: some have been monitoring their achievements meticulously and have been using questionnaires for a longer time and some hold this practice superfluous and believe it “to affect their autonomy”

      different unresolved organisational and financial problems of implementation

      teachers doubt that conducting the survey before they are given better working conditions may have any effect at all

      low motivation for conducting the survey (among some teachers) since it does not offer any new important insights into the teaching process

Positive points:

      positive attitudes towards this type of teaching quality evaluation

      survey encouraged thinking about the minimum quality standard of both, the teaching process and the attitude of teachers towards students