Periodic evaluation on KFL2060 Gender Equalities in the Nordic Countries 06 07

1. Divergences from the original course (descriptions and comments)

The course was carried out according to the course description.

2. Marks, failures and withdrawals (results and comments)

In the period spring 2006 to autumn 2007 the results have varied:

Mark; percentage of students who received a C or better of all students who took the exams:

Spring 2006: 51% (8)
Autumn 2006: 69% (13)
Spring 2007: 80% (10)
Autumn 2007: 63% (8)

Failures:

Spring 2006: 1 student
Autumn 2006: 0
Spring 2007: 0
Autumn 2007: 2 students


Withdrawals; percentage of students who had registered for exams:

Spring 2006: 0
Autumn 2006: 19 %
Spring 2007: 29%
Autumn 2007: 33%

These results indicate improvement of student results from spring 2006 until spring 2007and declining results for the autumn 2007course. The variation seems to be related to the level of student activities during the course.

Autumn 2007 the majority of students who filled in the student evaluation form reported to have spent up to 5 hours weekly and only a minority spent from 5 to 10 hours per week on this course. No one had spent more time on their studies. This term only 50% of the registered students got their exam, and the average marks were lower than the two previous terms.

This student group was particular as a majority took an intensive course in Norwegian at UiO, and clearly prioritized learning Norwegian over Gender Equality. As a majority had other primary interests than KFL2060 the learning environment was also less favorable for students who came to UiO primarily to study KFL and related topics.

A general observation is that students who live in Norway and work here or fund their stay in Oslo with own paid work have less time for their studies and have weaker results.

There are also different cultures for how much effort students are used to put into their studies. When the student group has been composed of many students from the Far East or from highly ranked study programs in Europe, results are good.

3. Indications/examples on high quality? Are these cases given any special attention?

Up to spring 2007 the course seemed to have found a good balance between lectures and discussions based on the syllabus and the students’ own background.

4. Indications/examples on low quality? Are these cases given any special attention?

As noted above it seems that autumn 2007 was specific concerning the quality of students/relevant student activities. Our follow-up will consist in emphasizing for the students the importance of preparation for classes and active participation in class activities.

5. What has been in focus this term in case of improving the quality of the course?

As last prior evaluations have indicated that the course has high quality no focus have been on quality development.

6. Suggestions on improvement for the course?

The most important is to ensure that the students take he course seriously as a proper field of knowledge.

Published Jan. 30, 2008 11:46 AM - Last modified Feb. 4, 2008 1:55 PM