1. EVALUATING LECTURING PLAD7 Silvi Salupere, Judit Strömpl

2. The objectives of the lecture/presentation To discuss on the important topic of teaching quality To share the experiences that we all have To rise the awareness of our activity as teachers To develop university teacher identity and solidarity between university teachers

3. Criteria for good lecturing Mood Context Outcomes Content Presentation skills Closure

4. Common lecturing problems Too much material Content No outcomes Outcomes No attempt at contextualization Context Irrelevance Context, Content Poor audio-visual aids Presentation skills Incompetent use of audio-visual aids PS Poor explanations PS, Content Too fast PS, Content Boring/ monotonous/unstimulating PS

5. Lecturing evaluation and feedback External evaluation (QAA) Peer evaluation (PET) Student evaluation

6. Some questions for the beginning to think about What do you think could help you to rise the quality of your teaching? What are your experiences with evaluation of your teaching? How the evaluation of lecturing helps to rise the quality of teaching?

7. Feedback questionnaire (open) What did you find most useful about that lecture? What did you find least useful about that lecture? What did you find interesting? What did you find difficult? What improvements could be made to the lecture?

8. Central system (like in our ÕIS) Is this module compulsory for you? * Have you attended at least 80% of the lessons? The lecture material was well structured and developed logically, clear explanation The teacher stimulated my interest and was creative

9. The teacher related the subject matter to practice and current available evidence The teacher treated students with fairness (in text – treated me! with respect) The teacher encouraged me to think and question during the lecture The visual aids used were clear and helped me understand the lecture/matter The teacher explained the course’ objectives and the way of passing fairly

10. Innovations (Tartu University) I was greatly interested in this course Given credits: too many, proper, too few This course/material is difficult for me The lectures, seminars and practices started and finished in time All the lectures/seminars/labs marked in schedule were done All the materials needed for the course were available to me In sum I evaluate the course as…

11. Instruction for evaluators (PET) Be realistic Be specific Be sensitive to the goals Be consciously non-judgmental Be aware of balancing positive and negative feedback Be prompt

12. Don’t worry If an occasional nasty comment appears on our own evaluations, we should remember, that too is expected and we shouldn’t worry unless there is a repeating pattern of such comments.

13. What affects student ratings: some points for discussion Whether students take the course as a requirement or as an elective The level of course. Graduate students and/or upper division students tend to rate instructors more favourably than did lower division students. Student rating forms are both unreliable and invalid. Students are not able to make accurate judgments until they have been away from the course. Students cannot make consistent judgments about the instructors and instruction because of their immaturity, lack of experience, and capriciousness. Most student rating schemes are nothing more than a popularity contest, with the warm, friendly, humorous instructor emerging as the winner every time.

14. Conclusion How do you evaluate the lecture today? Did we reach the objectives? Did we develop some university teachers’ identity? What about solidarity between university teachers?