andThe dialogue about the content, methods and goals of the course is part of the teaching work. At the beginning of the semester, discuss the topic and its integration in the technical and historical context, especially related personal aspects, accompanying literature and performance records.There is a report at the end of the semester, usually incorporating feedback from students student Through the questionnaire survey.
As usual, lecturers will distribute these questionnaires at the seminar, collect them at the end of the course, and discuss feedback with students in the following week. The basis is seminars, mutual trust through direct relationships and common goals: the successful conclusion of the event, and the discussion of possible topic additions or suggestions for improvement of the course itself.
This is contrary to the assessment regulations within the framework of the Bologna process. Not a culture of dialogue, but a general distrust of all relevant personnel. Both parties are considered dishonest. Lecturers are no longer allowed to collect and evaluate evaluation forms. You can compare the handwritten assessment form with the handwritten exam. For critics of the seminar, logically, this may lead to poor test scores. This assumes that it violates the official duties of the central government, conducts the most objective and individual independent evaluation of performance records, and will be punished in accordance with the civil service and administrative law.
On the other hand, students may avoid criticism for fear of poor grades, even if the semester speaker collected the evaluation form and presented the evaluation results at the seminar without saying their name. However, from a legal point of view, the latter is more doubtful because the evaluation form collects personal data. Is the University of Bologna (as a collective name for higher education institutions) a place of fear, adjustment, and subordination at the same time, where discussions are no longer possible? Where else should students learn to express criticism or question a given structure?
The practice of some institutions is utterly absurd: lecturers are only allowed to distribute evaluation forms here. The students collect the papers and place them in a sealed envelope to give to the faculty and staff evaluators. The questionnaire is then scanned, the cross-answers are automatically evaluated statistically, and the results are emailed to the instructor-along with the handwritten comments in the free text field. Instructors who want to compare written samples and assign test scores can also do it in the digital version.
Which shouldn’t leave the room
Anyone who relies on fully digitally implemented assessments (using carefully designed anonymous methods, at least for students), will inhibit the consequences of a culture of technical feedback. The lack of social participation and control in the communication process, especially in the case of reasonable and constructive criticism, will quickly lead to language derailment without social counterparts. As we know on social media, those who sit alone in front of the screen and keyboard are prone to arguments. Then there is no constructive feedback. After all, data (including the allocation of personnel and events) is now stored in the university’s IT system and can be used for further “personnel management”. For example, people who are paid with W salary must include the evaluation results in their regular self-reports. They are regarded as possible allowance standards.
