Procedure for course evaluations

Purpose

The purpose of teaching evaluations is to provide lecturers, study boards, and management with insight into the outcomes of the various elements of the programmes. This knowledge can be used to continuously improve teaching and ensure that students are offered the best possible conditions for learning and completing their courses. Teaching evaluations should ensure the quality of instruction and form a solid foundation for future development.

Basis for the procedure

The Faculty of Social Sciences’ procedures for teaching evaluations are based on:

  • The University of Copenhagen’s Guidelines for Teaching Evaluation
  • The University Act
  • The Executive Order on Transparency and Openness in Education, etc.
  • The Act on Supplementary Provisions to the Regulation on the Protection of Natural Persons in Connection with the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (the Data Protection Act, as well as the General Data Protection Regulation)
  • The Executive Order on the Disclosure of Personal Data covered by Section 10(1) and (2) of the Data Protection Act

All ECTS credit accumulating study activities are evaluated

Teaching evaluations comprise all ECTS credit accumulating study activities; incl.:

  • bachelor and master’s projects
  • master’s theses
  • field work
  • academic internships

Frequency of evaluations

The Faculty places great emphasis on the evaluations as a means of guaranteeing favourable conditions for student learning and lecturer engagement. Thus, course evaluation is conducted at the end of each course cycle.

A subject element is normally evaluated twice during the process – at the mid-way point and at the end.

The purpose of the mid-point evaluation is to make improvements and adjustments to a subject element while it is running. The mid-point evaluation provides lecturers with tangible and specific indicators that they can use to change the content and/or form of teaching for the rest of the semester.

The purpose of the final evaluation is to contribute to future improvements and adjustments to the courses, and to provide study boards, programme management and other stakeholders with information about the subject element and the teaching.

The evaluations therefore have a dual purpose. They provide a “snapshot” of current teaching and establish a basis for knowledge about how to develop the course in the future – both in the short and longer term.

Evaluation format for final evaluations and data collection

Teaching evaluations are organised and conducted centrally at the Faculty of Social Sciences. In addition, the individual study boards may add department‑specific questions to the evaluation so that it reflects the particular characteristics of the subjects and the needs and priorities of each study board. Lecturers may also add course‑specific questions to the evaluation.

When choosing the evaluation format and formulating the questions, emphasis is placed on ensuring that the evaluation results are action‑oriented and made visible to the students.

The final evaluation questionnaire focuses on the students’ assessment of:

  • the learning outcomes of the courses
  • the students’ experience of the structure and content of the courses
  • the interaction between lecturer and students

A common, faculty‑designed questionnaire offers advantages such as continuity and the possibility of comparing results over time and across courses and programmes. Electronic evaluation makes it possible to survey all students enrolled in a course and enables automatic data collection. The study administration is responsible for updating and maintaining the evaluation tools (such as the questionnaires).

Communication about purpose and results

Heads of Studies are responsible for following up on the course evaluations with students and lecturers. This can take place through multiple channels, e.g., the KUnet Study Information of the respective study programmes, questionnaires, emails, meetings and through lecturers. The Boards of Studies, along with the Heads of Studies, assess which adaptations may be relevant as a result of the course evaluations

For example, the first lesson for a given course may begin with the lecturer informing the students about any changes that have been made compared to the previous course cycle, a result of the evaluations, or parts of the lecturer’s teaching style that the lecturer plans to change as a response to previous evaluations.

Response rates

The response rate is mainly secured by carrying out evaluations in class and by regularly involving students in the evaluation process. At the Faculty of Social Sciences, the target response rate for evaluations is 50%. Ongoing efforts are made to improve the response rates. Response rates are the focus of attention when choosing the method of evaluation, and communication about the purpose and result of the course evaluations also aim to increase response rates. Ways of increasing response rates are regularly considered by the Boards of Studies, among departmental management, in the Heads of Studies Forum, as well as by the Faculty management team.

Evaluation reports

Heads of Studies prepare annual course evaluations for each department at a maximum of three pages in which evaluations for the most recent academic year are summarised. The faculty has a template to be used for the summative teaching evaluation reports. Course evaluation reports place courses of study into one of three categories: A, B or C. This is made on the basis of the results from the survey and subsequent discussion in the board of studies.

  • A: An exemplary course of study that can be of inspiration to others.
  • B: A satisfactory course of study.
  • C: A course of study that requires adjustments.

The Head of Studies for the programme in question consults with the programme’s Board of Studies and is responsible for the application of A, B and C categorisations. The administration is responsible for the Board of Studies receiving detailed information about the students evaluation of courses and classes. Follow-up initiatives are described in the course evaluation report.

The course evaluation report must be approved by the Dean.

Category A

An A-evaluation is given when course evaluations are particularly good, e.g., when the lecturer has embarked on exemplary initiatives that have created positive experiences from which other lecturers and course elements can benefit.

Category B

A B-evaluation is given when conditions are regarded to be satisfactory. A B-evaluation does not exclude the Head of Studies from conveying suggestions for improvement to the course lecturer, but as a rule of thumb, the initiative rests with the lecturer.

Category C

A C-evaluation is given when conditions in one or more areas are of a character that warrants supervision by the Head of Studies and/or the Head of Department, depending on the issues in question. A C-evaluation can also be given when the need arises to change aspects of a course element that do not relate directly to teaching, e.g., course content, student prerequisites, course difficulty or the scope of the course.

Publication of course evaluation reports

The evaluation reports are published on the department website before 1 December every year. This gives staff, students, and external stakeholders the opportunity to view the results and the follow-up plans. It also provides the general public with an insight into evaluation procedures and quality assurance at the faculty.

As evaluations often involve considerable back-and-forth correspondence, publication involves a certain amount of aggregation of results in order to comply with the Data Protection Act.

Links to completed course evaluation reports are found on the right side of this page.

Follow-up on the results of course evaluations

In cooperation with the Head of Department and the Board of Studies, the Head of Studies is responsible for ensuring that steps are taken to follow up on course evaluations. The Board of Studies is responsible for decisions on follow-up work concerning the planning courses, academic content, exams, and amendments to curricula.

The administration ensures that the individual lecturers and/or course coordinators can access detailed information on the students' evaluation on their individual courses and classes so that they can follow up on the evaluations.

The Head of Studies is responsible for ensuring communication with students, lecturers and other players and stakeholders about the results of, and steps taken to follow-up on the, course evaluations. The Faculty’s offer of skills development for lecturers is described here: https://socialsciences.ku.dk/faculty/quality-assurance/lecturers-competences/skills-development/  Here, it is further described how it is ensured that offers of skills development correspond to needs and how the Faculty documents initiatives in relation to skills development.

The assistant professors discuss their teaching evaluations with their assistant professor supervisors as part of their supervision.

The Head of Studies informs the Head of Department of evaluation results and other results from the courses on an ongoing basis. This ensures that the Head of Department is aware of all matters relating to the individual staff member’s teaching and any need for further development, e.g., in connection to performance and development reviews. The Head of Department is responsible for ensuring that steps are taken to follow up on the course evaluations, particularly in relation to competencies of the permanent academic staff.

A category B evaluation does not preclude proposing improvements and adjustments to the lecturer, but in principle taking the initiative is up to the lecturer.

Follow-up on category C evaluations

The Head of Studies is responsible for the Head of Department receiving detailed information on courses and classes that receive category C evaluations, so that the Head of Department is able to conduct follow-ups on the evaluations.

If issues relate to personnel issues (e.g., lack of punctuality or a failure to grade assignments on time), a category C evaluation will lead to an interview between the Head of Department and the lecturer. Staff matters are the joint responsibility of the Head of Studies and the Head of Department, the Head of Department being responsible for permanent academic staff and the Head of Studies being responsible for part-time academic staff.

In other cases, e.g., concerning the use of educationally inappropriate teaching methods or evaluations that indicate the need for adaptations to teaching form or other adjustments to the individual course, the Head of Studies, and the lecturer, through dialogue, agree on a mutually acceptable solution. If the Head of Studies and lecturer fail to agree on a solution, the Head of Department is brought in. Heads of Studies discuss the need for relevant further education for staff, at regular meetings with the Associate Dean for Education.

In all cases, the goal is to reach unambiguous agreement. For example, it may be agreed that the lecturer may embark on a course or be placed under peer supervision, or that some other kind of skills-development process is initiated.

In each case of a category C evaluation, concrete, targeted initiatives must be put in place to meet the specific demands.

Allocation of responsibilities

Lecturers must:

  • Encouraging the students to participate in the evaluation
    Keep themselves informed of the results of the course evaluations for their courses.
  • Decide, based on the course evaluation, whether they should revise their teaching in the future or work on skills development.
  • Involve the Head of Studies if the evaluations suggest that changes to the course or the study programme are needed.


The Head of Studies is responsible for:

  • ensuring that the course evaluations lead to conclusions and possibly decisions, including whether the Study Board should take action and if so, what form that action should take
  • that the purpose with and results of the course evaluations are communicated to the teaching staff, and students.


The Study Board is responsible for:

  • assessing and deciding on adjustments related to planning, academic content, examinations, and adaptation of curriculum.

The Head of Department is responsible for:

  • following up on the course evaluations with particular regard to the competencies of the teaching staff.


The Dean is responsible for:

  • ensuring that course evaluations are completed in line with the guidelines of the Faculty of Social Science and the University of Copenhagen (which are described here).
  • publishing the course evaluation reports
  • approve the course evaluation reports
  • ensuring that the Faculty of Social Science’s guidelines for the area are revised if necessary