June 2025 | Oceanography
85
We believe that instructors should respond to a TAP session
by telling their students what they learned from it. Additionally,
they should explain to students which aspects they can and will
change, as well as those they will not, providing the rationale
for their decisions. In our specific case, forwarding some of the
student feedback to the study administration led to some struc
tural improvements, such as better equipment in classrooms.
The feedback we received from the instructors was all positive—
important, considering that they had to invest 30 minutes of
their valuable class time to administering the TAP.
If you are interested in trying out TAP as a feedback
method, we recommend aligning your evaluation approach
with the instructors’ and study programs’ needs and goals.
The TAP could be part of a larger transformation pro
cess that could also, for instance, include introducing active
learning or alternative teaching methods. To gain experi
ence with TAP, it is useful to employ two facilitators, to start
small with a few courses, and then to build a team of people
who can facilitate TAPs. Because staff time is often limited,
TAP facilitators could include students, which is something
we have done and have found to work well. We know of at
least one university (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg) that
trains students to be TAP facilitators. Working together with
students in this way is a great example of student-staff part
nership and co-creation. Feel free to contact us to discuss TAP
(https://cocreatinggfi.w.uib.no/contact/).
REFERENCES
Hawelka, B. 2019. Coding Manual for Teaching Analysis Polls. University of
Regensburg: Center for University and Academic Teaching (ZHW), https://www.
uni-regensburg.de/assets/zentrum-hochschul-wissenschaftsdidaktik/forschung/
manual-tap-2019.pdf.
Johannsen, T., and H. Meyer. 2023. Improving Teaching Quality In Higher
Education: A Practitioner’s Guide To Using Formative Teaching Analysis Poll.
European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), https://doi.org/10.21427/
8REM-2V61.
AUTHORS
Robert Kordts (robert.kordts@uib.no), Mahaut de Vareilles, Kjersti Daae,
Eirun Gandrud, Anne D. Årvik, and Mirjam S. Glessmer, University of Bergen,
Bergen, Norway.
ARTICLE CITATION
Kordts, R., M. de Vareilles, K. Daae, E. Gandrud, A.D. Årvik, and
M.S. Glessmer. 2025. TAP: Teaching Analysis Poll for student feedback.
Oceanography 38(2):83–85, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2025.305.
COPYRIGHT & USAGE
This is an open access article made available under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and repro
duction in any medium or format as long as users cite the materials appropriately,
provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate the changes that
were made to the original content.
TABLE 1. Relevant categories from Hawelka (2019) identified in GFI TAP, 2022–2024. The first and second columns indicate the category titles, number
of responses (n), and definitions. The third and fourth columns show example GFI TAP responses in each category.
CATEGORY TITLE
CATEGORY DEFINITION
EXAMPLE RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS…
WHAT FACILITATES LEARNING?
WHAT HINDERS LEARNING?
Learning Materials, 6.2
(n = 22)
The lecturer provides helpful learning
resources for self-study.
“the [Learning Management System’s]
page is tidy”
“[we want] more exam-relevant
problems”
Presentation, 1.1
(n = 16)
Lecturers use adequate rhetoric
and visual means to present the
learning material in an intelligible and
stimulating way.
“[Instructor] is very good at explaining
concepts in a pedagogical way”
“[Instructor should] talk slower and
clearer”
Monitoring students’
learning progress, 5.2
(n = 13)
The teacher supports the students
in monitoring their learning progress
through feedback, formative
assessment, and similar strategies.
“Quiz at the end of lecture”
“The lab report seems to be more
work than learning”
General framework, 8
(n = 12)
This category includes all feedback
about the course, the lecturer, and
learning outcomes.
“The small size of the class”
“Classroom: Screens are hard to see,
some screens do not work”
Overall rating, 7
(n = 11)
This category includes the
organizational and curricular
framework of the course.
“Good introduction to different
courses that come later in program”
“Workload of this course more like
10 ECTS than 5”