Scope of the seriesAdvances in Business Education & Training is a Book Series to foster advancement in the field of Business Education and Training. It serves as an international forum for scholarly and state-of-the-art research and development into all aspects of Business Education and Training. It will not only publish empirical studies but also stimulate theoretical discussions and address practical implications. Also reviews of important developments in the field are encouraged. The editors welcome contributions in which a line of reasoning is illustrated with experiments, design-based studies, best practices, and theory development. In addition, the editors encourage submission of new ideas for business education and training, papers that are not necessarily empirical in nature, but describe interesting new educational tools, approaches or solutions. The book series will include both edited volumes comprised of peer-reviewed articles as authored books. Each volume is dedicated to a specific theme in business education, and will be complemented with articles that can be a resource to advance business education and training.
Evalueringspraksisser skifter løbende, og der eksperimenteres med nye tilgange, metoder og procedurer. Artiklens fokus er på dilemmaet imellem kontrol og udvikling. Der rapporteres fra en undersøgelse af holdninger til forskellige tilgange til evaluering og udbyttet af disse. Undersøgelsen er en kvalitativ undersøgelse baseret på interviews med centrale aktører på forskellige niveauer (ledelse, lærere, studerende, studieledere og institutledere) og dokumentariske studier af materiale, på tre danske universiteter. Vi sammenligner, hvordan forskellige aktører opfatter mål med evaluering, praksis og udbytte. Alle tre tilfælde viser, at ydre krav og forventninger fører til større centralisering og mere standardisering. Selv om ledelsen forsøger at kombinere udvikling og kontrol, sker der ofte en opdeling i to parallelle processer. Undersøgelsen dokumenterer, at kombinationen af kontrol og udvikling i den samme undervisningsevaluering er uhensigtsmæssig: Såvel studerende som undervisere mister engagementet og savner muligheder for feedback og opfølgning. Det fremgår, at standardisering, centralisering og formalisering af undervisningsevalueringer fører til mindre udvikling og regnes for mindre nyttigt af såvel undervisere som studerende. Evaluation practices at Danish universities are changing continuously. There is an ongoing experimentation with new approaches, methods and procedures. Our focus in this article is on evaluation as a balancing act between control and development. We report from an investigation of key stakeholder’s attitudes to different practices and to the outcomes of those practices, having interviewed management, teachers, students, program directors and department heads at three different faculties belonging to three different Danish universities. We compare how the different key stakeholders perceive evaluation objectives, practices and outcomes within and across the three faculties. It seems clear in all three cases that external demands and expectations lead to more centralized initiatives and more standardized procedures. Even though faculty management tries to encompass both development and control objectives in the ongoing teaching evaluations, the division between evaluations for control purposes and evaluations for development purposes are clearly divided into two parallel evaluation structures. The study documents that the combination of control and development into the same teaching evaluation is counterproductive: it neither engages the students nor the teachers, it does not allow for closure of the feedback loop and it does not ensure follow-up. It is therefore suggested that more standardized, centralized and formalized teaching evaluations lead to less development and are thus less useful to both teachers and students.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.