Course evaluation template

(1)

Sida 1 av 4 Course evaluation template

Course evaluation template

After the course has ended, the course coordinator fills in this template. The head of department/programme decides whether the template should be supplemented with further information/questions.

Course code 4FH086

Course title

Epidemiological methods for studying the determinants of health

Credits 7,5

Semester

spring

Period

2020

Course coordinator Karin Modig

Examiner Karin Modig

Other participating teachers

Anna Meyer, Giorgio Tettamanti, Hanna Mogensen, Anthony Matthews, Kataline Gemes, Stina Ek, Mozhu Ding, Eva Skillgate

Other participating teachers

Number of registered students 39

Number who have not completed the course

6

Number passed after regular session 33

Conclusions from the previous course evaluation

The home exam was too extensive, also covered the same things repeatedly Somewhat different views on definitions among the teachers

Some students report they want more statistics before this course.

Quizzes were good.

Description of conducted changes since previous course occasion Taken out the home exam, replaced it with an in-house exam with two main questions.

Conducted a pass-part and a pass-with distinction-part.

Fewer teachers, structured teacher meeting before course.

The course has been moved later in the program so that the students take the biostatistics course prior to this.

Increased the number on quizzes and put them on Canvas.

Method(s) for student influence State:

• how the students were given the opportunity to participate in the preparation and decisions at course level,

(2)

Not participate, but they gave feedback during and after the course. The students also have two student representatives, which are present during planning phase and discussions at the program meetings at PHS.

• how the students were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the course and how this forms the basis of the analysis and proposals below,

Students are giving feedback orally and in written form during and after the course, as well as in written form in the evaluation. I also had separate zoom-meting with the student representatives to receive feedback from them.

• response frequency (for example, concluding survey 70 % response frequency, post-it notes – improvement suggestions after the second course week 90 % response

frequency, course council 85 % attendance).

67% answer frequence on the written evaluation.

Summary of the students’ response to the course valuation

Graphs and selected quotes from course surveys and any other instruments can be added as appendices if required.

Overall it was good. 73% reported that they had developed valuable expertise/skills during the course to a large or very large extent. The results were however poorer than last year where the corresponding number was more than 90%. I believe that the distance teaching via zoom contributed to this. And the pandemic situation as such with many students in different time zones. There were also more students than before, 39. There is a risk that more students decrease the quality of the course. But this we will have to explore better in some more rounds of the course.

A few students wrote very negative comments about the course and about me as a course leader. It was about me not providing the same learning opportunities to everyone, taking into account how the pandemic affected them and so on. I was sad to hear this since in my view I did many adjustments, both in the schedule by re-arranging lectures to later in the day, setting up teachers online slots for students to ask questions if they missed lectures or didn’t follow the slides, as well as providing answers via mail and zoom for the students who approached me with questions. I actually devoted all my times during two months to this course, but apparently some students were still unhappy.

Students also reported that it was tiresome with long days on zoom. If the course run again online I will spread the lectures and seminar more evenly over the days.

The course coordinator’s reflections on the implementation and results of the course

Reflections on the course’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, limitations within, for example, the following areas:

• How have the students’ previous knowledge, experiences and prerequisites been used as a basis during the course?

• In what way the work methods used during the course contribute to the students attaining the learning outcomes?

• How has the course worked with -constructive alignment - from learning outcomes to examination form and examination content?

• How do examinations and assessment criteria ensure that students achieve the learning outcomes of the course? ‘

See above, reflections included with students comments.

(3)

All examinations focus on interpretation and application of the content learned during lectures and course material. It is a mix of group discussions and individual

assignments. All assignments are put in the order of when brought up during the course to get alignment, and it is a progress in terms of level.

Description of how the course works with quality, research-basis and collaboration with other professions

See, for example, the report, KI – University of Opportunities: Inquiry into the Quality and Research Basis of Education (UKF) and Strategy 2018:Roadmap for Karolinska Institutet 2014-2018.

Course coordinator’s conclusions and suggestions for improvement I think I can be better at communicate the expectations in the beginning of the course, and point out how important it is for them to start directly with the assignment. It is clear that some students are surprised by the intensity and how much is required from them during this course. I also think the individual assignment fulfil the learning objective throughout the course. The home exam was a bit of a failure to some extent, probably both for me as a leader but also for some of the students. About half of the students failed the first round of the exam.

I had a lecture going through the correct answers and also offered some teachers-online sessions prior to the re-exam. Most students then passed the re-exam and did very well.

Views on the course and improvement suggestions from others

From student representatives, programme committees, education committees or equivalent.

The course coordinator fills this in after this report has been circulated and discussed within the programme.

Description of how the course valuation has provided feedback internally and to the students

State:

• Within which forums the course evaluation has been discussed (for example, programme council, programme committee/education committee where student representatives are present, etc.)

• How the course evaluation has been presented to the students (for example, on the course web, in a course council, etc.).

At the course web.

(4)

Tilläggsfrågor till kursledarreflektioner (på engelska):

Indicator # of hours Rationale

STUDENT/LECTURER:

Number of contact hours in total

Of which:

(i) Number of hours lead by lecturer

(ii) Number of hours for student interaction/group work/peer review etc.

COURSE LEADER:

Number of hours that you as a course leader have spent with the students Number of hours that you as course leader have spent on your pedagogical

development before, during, after the course Pedagogical skills that you would like to improve

Make a table of your Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO) as formulated in the syllabus and identify the ILOs that were mainly met through lectures.

Reflect on the type and level of student participation during the course. When were most/least students present in the classroom? How do you interpret that? Were you helped to understand this through the student valuation? If yes, please describe how. If no, please suggest

alternative ways of getting this information.

Attach your final schedule to the reflections. Comment on any changes made during the course and the reasons.