Evaluation Presentation at the CMG meeting in Madrid 6 June 2014 Remmelt Veenkamp

Course portfolio COURSESApplication deadline Course startCourse end Social Work in Europe – M1 – 5 ECTS 09/09/201323/09/201318/11/2013 Comparative Social Work – M2 – 10 ECTS 01/10/201311/11/201310/02/2014 Community work from an international perspective – M3 – 15 ECTS 28/11/201327/01/201402/06/2014 Contextual Social Work - Master Course 09/09/1315/05/14 VirCamp evaluation

Teacher team M1M2M3 Master Head Teacher Jochen PeterFernando LucasRina VisserSiv Oltedal Teacher Sinnika Gusset Bahrer Fernando LucasAnne Karin LarsenSiv Oltedal TeacherInger Kristin Heggdalsvik Remmelt VeenkampGordon VincentiPetra Ahnlund TeacherJurgen Bastanie Bieke DierkcxYan Zhao TeacherDavid Alonso Carmen ArenasJanne P Brimo Berit Skarstad VirCamp evaluation

M1 Started with 49 students 37 students delivered their final exam (re- exam included). drop-outs: 12 students. VirCamp evaluation

Origin students Belgium (Thomas More University College (TMUC))5 students Germany (5 HSM + 7 HSMA)12 students Spain (UCM)12 students Netherlands INHOLLAND (INH)7 students Norway (HiB)2 students Finland (exchange student of TMUC)1 student Hungary (exchange student of TMUC)1 student Latvia (exchange students of HIB)2 students VirCamp evaluation

Final assignment Results M1 The final assignment in M1 is a combination of tasks done during the course. Of the 43 students who started the course, 36 students took exam at ordinary time. 35 students passed. 1 student failed. 1 student asked for a delayed exam, due to personal reasons. 5 students did not submit their exam. VirCamp evaluation

Final assignment Results M1 VirCamp evaluation A3 B7 C11 D13 E2 F1 Delayed exam1

Evaluation results End survey (N=36, n=24) The respondents find the tasks and assignments effective in promoting learning (91 % agrees or agrees strongly) 75 – 92 % responded that they found the lessons informative, relevant, clear, interesting, stimulating, current The respondents valued positive the use of the Virtual Book and the triggers. In general they experienced this as stimulating in their learning process. VirCamp evaluation

Evaluation results But it is also important to notice that to all aspects there was all the time a small percentage of the respondents who (strongly) disagreed. This differed between 4,2 % - 16,7 %, which means that 1 – 4 of the respondents was not satisfied with the course on different aspects. Communication between students, and students and teachers Workload of the course Balance of the workload Information about the course (management of expectations) VirCamp evaluation

M2 Started with 16 students 11 students delivered their final exam 1 student applied for a delayed exam drop-outs: 4 students VirCamp evaluation

Students origin Germany HSMA & HSM 3 students 1 exchange student Sweden Spain, UCM3 students Belgium, TMUC5 students Norway, HiB2 students 2 exchange students VirCamp evaluation

Final assignment Results M2 To finish the course of M2a, the students had to deliver a portfolio exam where students in the end were some of the tasks students had been working on during the course were assessed. VirCamp evaluation

Final assignment Results M2 VirCamp evaluation A1 B4 C2 D2 E- F2 Delayed exam1

Evaluation results End survey (N=12, n=4) The respondents experienced that this course gave them a possibility to control their time, place and pace of their study development. The respondents were positive about the interaction and collaboration between students and teachers in relation to learning. They mentioned especially the chats together with the teachers. Although not all students participated in the chats frequently, the teachers experienced the chats as very constructive and lively. The literature was updated. But according to the teachers this could be improved. VirCamp evaluation

M3 Started with 39 students 35 students delivered their final exam 1 student did not submit yet drop-outs: 3 students VirCamp evaluation

Origin students Belgium (Thomas More University College (TMUC))7 incoming students Germany (3 HSM + 6 HSMA)9 students Spain (UCM)18 students Netherlands INHOLLAND (INH)1 student Norway (HiB)1 students + 2 incoming students Countires represented by incoming students: Austria, Lithuania, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Spain VirCamp evaluation

Evaluation results The course just recently ended (2 June) End survey (N =36, n = 22) Has to be analysed in a good way. 80% strongly agrees- agrees to recommend this course to other students VirCamp evaluation

What is your opinion about the way this course Promotes active learning 50%36,4%4,5% Builds on previous acquired competences 18,2%68,2%4,5% Promotes interaction and collaboration between students and teachers 50%31,8%13,6%0%4,5% Permits students control over time, place and pace of instruction 45,5%36,4%13,6%0%4,5% Promotes integration of theory and practice 27,3%54,5%9,1%4,5% Promotes reflection on learning 50%40,9%0%4,5% Promotes academic writing 59,1%36,4%0% 4,5% Promotes openess of sharing knowledge 50%36,4%0%9,1%4,5% Promotes ICT skills18,2%68,2%0%4,5%9,1% Promotes English language skills 45,5%36,4%9,1%4,5% Promotes compararive work 27,3%50%9,1%4,5%9,1% VirCamp evaluation

Evaluation results 2 incidents Gordon Vincenti left the course premature due to organizational and health reasons Tesoriero book VirCamp evaluation

Master course: Contextual Social Work 23 students Origin: – 10 Norwegian (Nordland) – 2 Spanish – 1 Swedish Course will not be continued next year as a virtual course in VirCamp Ownership of the material VirCamp evaluation

Conclusions of the IERS In general the students are highly positive on the VirCamp courses. Almost all defined standards of the VirCamp Quality Guide (2010) are met. A point of attention is the actuality of the courses in general, the reading list and the learning material VirCamp evaluation

Conclusions of the IERS Special attention is needed for the intensity of the communication between students and teachers on the platform. What the evaluation report shows is that the number of postings in all courses increased substantially. This result is in line with outcomes of student surveys, namely that students ask for more feedback, more cooperation with students and with teachers.. This will be worked on at the teacher days of our yearly meeting in June VirCamp evaluation

Points of attention IERS Propose that we look at the standards which are at stake Every three years we have to look at all standards Survey for the teachers regarding the courses Questions to evaluate Administrative work VirCamp evaluation

VirCamp evaluation