Curriculum Development, Course Design, Higher Education Didactics, Evaluation of Teaching

Report of the Evaluation Committee

1. Introduction

The aim of this essay is to provide a detailed report about the work of the evaluation committee in Module 4.1 ‘Curriculum Development, Course Design, Higher Education Didactics, Evaluation of Teaching’, which took place in the week between 7^th to 11^th of May 2007.

The formation of an evaluation committee was based on a proposal of the professors responsible for the module, Professor Barbara M. Kehm and Professor Matthias Wesseler. The committee was defined as a ‘task force’ which should support the quality of Module 4.1. Its precise task was to monitor the teaching and learning process, and contribute to enhance its quality wherever possible. The project was considered to be a practical exercise on quality assurance for the students, who voluntarily agreed to conduct the evaluation. Not only should the members of the committee define their own ‘external’ evaluation approach, but also focus on their own procedures, materials and outputs, and share their experiences and insights with the whole group. The original members were Shengyin Chen, Christian Noumi, Zarko Dragsic, and myself. This team started the evaluation exercise, and gave first insights in the workflow and provisional reflections of the committee in two short presentations during the module week. Due to internal problems in the group, the composition of the evaluation team slightly changed after that; and in the end, the final presenters of the evaluation findings, outcomes and recommendations on Friday the 11th of May 2007 were Carla Ramirez, Yuanyuan Yu, Christian Noumi, Zarko Dragsic and myself.

For the report, it was also required to include theoretical background from the existing literature on the topic of teaching evaluation. Therefore, the following chapter, ‘2. Background: General Remarks on the Evaluation of Teaching’, covers the history and development of teaching evaluation in German-speaking countries; resistance, reasons and perspectives regarding this issue; and the problem of defining teaching quality, which is strongly related to the task of the evaluation committee of improving the quality of Module 4.1.

In the module, it was claimed several times, that students can be involved in changing the quality of teaching and learning at universities. They can be the major driving force to increase the quality, but they also might be the major brake or constraint for improvements. This evaluation report should serve as an example for the first case. It should bring about positive change, and enhance the quality of the evaluated module; and, at best, of other modules in the international Master Programme ‘Higher Education’.

Download complete article…(pdf)

Popularity: 59% [?]

Subscribe to the post comments feeds or Leave a trackback