Identifying strengths and weaknesses, deriving measures and thus improving the quality of studies and teaching – that is what ‘internal evaluation’ is all about. The example of the social sciences programme shows why qualitative methods are indispensable in addition to quantitative surveys.
Evaluation comes from the Latin valere: ‘strong, worthy’. It often involves detailed questionnaires, columns of figures and statistics that can be difficult to understand. The four-person team in the Internal Evaluation department, which is part of the Studies and Teaching division, demonstrates why this effort is worthwhile and how dialogue can play a key role in the process. For the social sciences programme, for example, the team provided important insights into the dropout rate in the bachelor's programme.
The team led by Dr Nicola Albrecht has various evaluation options in its repertoire for surveying small and large groups of students, lecturers or alumni. It presents the results clearly for internal clients and the university community. ‘This also includes advising on the results and possible improvement measures,’ says Rosa Maria Knierim, who has been with the team since 2017.
Since the 2023/24 winter semester, the social sciences programme has been using the new ‘Dialog im Fokus’ evaluation tool once a year, which focuses on discussion and feedback from students. ‘We wanted to know why many students drop out of the bachelor's programme in the first and second semesters and whether we could do anything to change that,’ says Prof. Dr. Jan Sauermann, political scientist at the Institute for Social Sciences.
Achieving change together
In the two rounds that have taken place so far, around 50 students each had the opportunity to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of starting their studies in the social sciences in moderated group discussions.
What do they like about the programme so far, what are they missing, and what could be improved? The internal evaluation moderation team documented the results of the group discussions. ‘We discussed the results with those responsible for the programme, who in turn discussed them with the students and in committees,’ says Knierim.
‘The whole thing has brought us three key insights so far,’ says Jan Sauermann happily. "We now know why some students drop out. We also have a much better understanding of the wishes and demands placed on the programme than before. What's more, our students feel more seen and understood."
The most important finding regarding university dropouts: ‘It turned out that some first-year students use social sciences studies to bridge the waiting period for a restricted-admission degree programme,’ says Sauermann. Others, on the other hand, have difficulty organising themselves. ‘This is a common reason for dropping out among first-generation academics, for example.’ While one fact cannot be changed, the other can. The institute now supports the student council in planning activities for orientation week to make it easier for new students to get started.
The students expressed a desire for more structure. ‘They suggested being provided with presentations or old and sample exams for learning purposes. We have now implemented this as well,’ says Sauermann. Another request that only came to light through the evaluation was for more transparency regarding bonus credits: How specifically can students earn additional credits through extra work beyond the normal exam requirements?
Praise for good support and active participation
Participation in the ‘Focus Dialogue’ could also be counted as a bonus achievement. The event took place in Lena Dahlhaus' statistics seminar. As a lecturer for special tasks at the Institute of Social Sciences, she is strongly committed to the development of the degree programme. ‘The event lasted about 90 minutes. But I was happy to make the seminar time available for it, because it gave us a lot of constructive feedback,’ she reports. This is now also reflected on relevant review portals – Oldenburg students explicitly praise the good support in the social sciences and the opportunity to actively shape the degree programme. ‘This is of course a great win-win situation for us as a university,’ says Rosa Maria Knierim happily. While the ‘Dialog im Fokus’ tool supports the further development of entire degree programmes, a similar evaluation procedure is aimed at individual courses.
The Teaching Analysis Poll (TAP), offered by Internal Evaluation in collaboration with University Didactics, can be used to determine how satisfied students are with their course. Here, too, moderated discussions with students take place within the course. They express their opinions on what helps them learn, what slows them down, and what suggestions for improvement they have. The results are collected and discussed confidentially with the teacher, who then enters into dialogue with the students and, if necessary, can make direct changes to their curriculum. ‘It's no small effort for a single course, but it's definitely worth it,’ says Knierim.
Registrations for ‘Dialog im Fokus’ are still open for the current winter semester 2025/26.
