Student evaluation of courses and study programmes

The method of evaluation and whether courses should have a mid-term (normally) – or an end of term evaluation is decided by the person responsible for the course in cooperation with the student representative at the beginning of the semester. Alternatively, the Faculty Board may stipulate that this matter will be decided by the programme committee/PhD programme committee.

If mid-term evaluation is arranged, it will normally be in week 41 in the autumn semester and week 10 in the spring semester.

Normally, one of the following methods will be used in student evaluation of courses:

• Plenary conversation between the student representative and the students with an ensuing dialogue between the person responsible for the course and the student representative.
• Digital evaluation with an ensuing dialogue between the person responsible for the course and the student representative.
• Dialogue between the person responsible for the course and the student representative.
• Dialogue between the study programme coordinator/PhD programme coordinator and the student representative.
• Dialogue between the person responsible for the course and the students.

Student evaluations may be conducted for each course or jointly for courses in the same semester.

The University Academic Affairs Committee has stipulated a checklist and a questionnaire for evaluation of courses.

A possible digital evaluation will be carried out in Canvas. The student representative will receive a report (without answers to open-ended questions) from the digital evaluation

A possible plenary conversation between the student representative and the students will normally be carried out in a teaching hour without the lecturer present.

The report from the digital evaluation or the summary from the plenary conversation, forms the bases for the dialog meeting wtith the person responsible for the course.

The student representative writes the minutes from the dialog meeting in a digital form which is then sent in a digital flow to the person responsible for the course. The minutes should NOT contain any personal information, characteristics of persons or other sensitive information.

The person responsible for the course adds possible comments and sends the minutes to filing (digital flow).

If the minutes contain sensitive information, or if the person responsible for the course has comments on the minutes before it is sent to filing, it may be returned to the student representative, who will be able to adjust the text and send the minutes back to the person responsible for the course. After approval, the person responsible for the course will upload the report in Canvas.

Follow-up
The minutes from the dialogue and possible report from the digital evaluation are presented in the lecturers’ meeting and programme committee/PhD programme committee. Proposals for changes are discussed in the annual study programme report. Proposals for changes to the PhD programmes will be presented in the annual quality report.

There is to be at least one student evaluation for each practice period. 

The method of evaluation and whether periods of practical training should have mid-term or end of term evaluation are stipulated as follows:

• For practical training governed by National Curriculum regulations: the study programme coordinator/Head of Study in consultation with the student representative.
• For practical training not governed by National Curriculum regulations: the person responsible for the course in cooperation with the student representative.

Alternatively, the Faculty Board may stipulate that the programme committee should decide the matter.

The evaluation should normally be conducted by one of the following methods:

• Digital evaluation
• Plenary conversation between all students (or students at the same place of practical training) and the person responsible for the course or the study programme coordinator.
• Plenary conversation between the student representative and the students with an ensuing dialogue between the person responsible for the course and the student representative.
• Conversation with a selection of students and the person responsible for the course and/or the study programme coordinator.

The University Academic Affairs Committee has stipulated a checklist for evaluation of practice. 

Follow-up
The evaluation-report is submitted to the lecturers’ meeting and the programme committee with possible comments from the person responsible for the course/the administration. Proposals for changes are commented on in the annual study programme report.

Evaluation of doctoral supervision is carried out through progress reports submitted at least once per year by the candidate and the supervisor. 

After completed period of exchange, a digital evaluation is carried out. The main focus is on facilitation from both UiA and the exchange institution, academic content and relevance to the study programme at UiA.

Annual evaluation of the study programme is carried out in the Study Programme Committee/PhD Programme Committee for all degree programmes as well as for the Postgraduate Certificate in Education. At least one student representative per student year group for bachelor’s and master’s programmes participates. In the case of PhD programmes, the student representative and at least one other candidate participate. Student representatives may bring input from fellow students to the meeting in the Study Programme Committee/PhD Programme Committee.

Minutes from the meeting in the Study Programme Committee with proposals for changes and other possible measures is part of the basis for the annual study programme report.

Periodic programme evaluation is to be carried out at least every sixth year for all study programmes. As part of the evaluation a panel is to be appointed. The panel includes student representatives and external members.