| It supports the identification of some possible solutions with an eye to positive overrun of the dysfunctional situations generated in the relationship and the didactic activity;The possibility to generate diagrams and to visualize the intersection area between the expectations of students and the ones of the teachers, regarding the activity developed together;The possibility to generate diagrams and to visualize the intersection area between the expectations of students and the ones of the teachers, regarding the activity developed together;Their “Format” and their “accessibility”, which allows “promoting students to speak”, capitalizing on the idea of “interactive learning”; |
Complicated analysis/ interpretation of the results offered by applying these tools, taking into account that “you have to review 500 paper works per semester”;Missing any practical aspect, since it is not specified “what follows after these tools being administered”, being offered very few indications regarding the practical use, by every teacher, of the results obtained from administering these tools;The high subjectivity of these tools, the issue in itself being a subjective one;The shallow, non-essential character of some of the information supplied by students (“who might pay more attention to you as a person, and not as a teacher”); |
The emphasis on quality in education, client satisfaction, teacher “opening a new door to a student”, making a greater step in their relationship and succeeding , a significant approach to him;“Motivating the teacher further”, when the feedback received by the students is positive;Training the student for positive relationships with his peers when “he will need to speak openly, assertively, assess his own behaviour and that of others”;The opportunity offered to the teacher to learn new things, to support them and trigger the self-adjustment; |
The risk of promoting labelling for some professors or students;The fickleness of the student” and “the impossibility to respond according to everyone’s expectations”;Subjectivity, but also frivolity, shallowness, exhibited by students in filling in these tools, even though they are able to make a good analysis of activity and the relation they developed with the teacher;The risk that the professor will administer these tools “only since he/she needs to have a portfolio, without taking them into account seriously, without stimulating/encouraging him/her to change”. |
