Cadastral Development – The
Contribution of
Scientific Enquiry, 2005: Summary of evaluations
Like the 2003-version of the PhD-course, the 2005-version
was formally evaluated
according to the provisions of the Doctoral School of Aalborg
University. Course participants
are requested to prepare a 2-page questionnaire. The following
summarises the
feed-back for the course. Of the 8 questions, 7 are standardised in
terms of a 5 point rating scale. The summary is followed by a resume of
responses to the open question and other comments made.
The 11 participants rated 'the course as a whole' as either Excellent
(4 participants), ticked the unnamed box next to Excellent (5) or
Appropriate (2).
Generally, they found the 'general level of the course' Appropriate
(8), while 2 would prefer a slightly lower level, and 1 slightly
higher. Most rated the 'Relevance of content' as Very relevant (3), or
next to that (7).
As regards form and content of course delivery, Lecturers were rated
Excellent by 7, while the majority rated the other items of that group
between Excellent
and Appropriate. One or two participants' ratings were
between Appropriate and Poor.
The workload was rated Appropriate by 9, and Assignments were
Appropriate for 10. Most stated that the course lived up to
the description, from Excellent (4) and next to Excellent (3) to next
to Appropriate (1). One suggested in a comment more assignments.
As regards free comments, motivations included "the focus on legal and
social science aspects of the cadastral domain", and "networking with
other researchers".
From an organizer's point of view, the participants were a bit
reluctant to participate in discussions, as compared to the 2003
course. An organisation Thursday of discussion in three groups,
providing mutual information on ongoing research, somehow set that
right. A suggestion for a
subsequent course was to replace the uniform, individual presentation
of research Tuesday with group work, which should lead to fewer
presentations, but then presentations of research compared.
The complexity of the issue of real property
rights was clearly demonstrated through teachers' presentations: Even
in Nordic countries, there are no
simple and uniform solution. A mentioning was made, that participants
from the technical domain might be used to more directive teaching,
that is: a teaching which (tacitly) asks students to imitate those
behaviors or skills that are modeled, presented, or instructed by the
teacher. The announcement of the course could state the diverse
approaches taken by the teachers in order not to disappoint
participants' expectations, or the presentations could be more adjusted
according to a common framework, if such could be established.
The 11 participants came from Nordic countries (4), further EU
countries (4), as well as Ukraine (2, of which 1 studying in Sweden)
and Russia (1). Further 3 from EU countries had indicated
their interest in participation, but were for different reasons
(arrangements crucial for their research (2), and cost (1)) not able to
participate. The need for the course thus appears to be
beyond doubt.
The support by NordForsk, Nordic Research Board, ref. 050102, and COST,
European CO-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical
Research, grant COST-School-G9-00026, is gratefully acknowledged.
Erik Stubkjær, est@land.aau.dk, 2. June
2005