Lassen sich die Evaluationsergebnisse im Rahmen einer strukturierten Überarbeitung von Skripten einer Vorlesungsreihe verbessern?
Eine prospektive empirische Beobachtungsstudie
Identifiers (Article)
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to determine whether a structured revision of lecture course scripts would be associated with better student evaluation results.
Methods: The present study investigated the evaluation results of the live online lecture course “Sports Medicine I (Orthopaedics)”, during fall semester 2020/2021 at the Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Germany. Five of the nine lectures were randomly chosen and a structured revision of lecture course scripts was performed (definition of learning aims, arrangement in small learning chapters and a repetition at the end of each lecture with questions and answers). Four lectures were not revised (control-group). At the end of each lecture, an anonymous evaluation was performed by the students using an established, standardized questionnaire. The students were not informed about the study.
Results: In total, 300 questionnaires were available for analysis (revised lectures group: n=143, non-revised lectures group: n=157). No significant difference could be found for the evaluation results between lectures with revised and unrevised lecture scripts, regarding the definition of learning aims, structure of each lecture, giving the opportunity for questions and answers and the self-ranked increase in learning (p>0,05; Kruskal-Wallis-Tests).
Conclusion: No improvement in evaluation results could be found after a structured revision of lecture course scripts.
Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective, randomized, controlled, observational study
Statistics
References
DE SHAZER 1994. Words Were Originally Magic. 1. Auflage, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
HINKIN, T. R., TRACEY, J. B., ENZ, C. A. 1997. “Scale Construction: Developing Reliable and Valid Measurement Instruments”, in: Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21:1, S. 100–120.
MARTON, F., SÄLJÖ, R. 1976a. “On qualitative differences in learning – I: Outcome and process”, in: British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46:1, S. 4–11.
MARTON, F., & SÄLJÖ, R. 1976b. “On qualitative differences in learning – II: Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task”, in: British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46:2, S. 115–127.
REICHHELD, F. F. 2003. “The one number you need to grow”, in: Harvard Business Review, 81:12, S. 46–55.
SAMUELS, P. 2015. “Statistical Methods – Scale reliability analysis with small samples”, Birmingham City University, Centre for Academic Success. (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Samu-els/publication/280936182_Advice_on_Reliability_Analysis_with_Small_Samples/links/56cf2acd08aeb52500c9854e/Advice-on-Reliability-Analysis-with-Small-Samples.pdf; Zugriff: 11.03.2021).
