What is Melanie Franz-Özdemir actually do?

In our ‘What are you actually doing…?’ section, members of the university community talk about their work.

What is your professional background, and how long have you been at the HfK?

After studying cultural and music studies as well as German language and literature at the University of Bremen, I worked as a freelancer in the fields of music education, cultural management and evaluation research. From 2009 to 2012, I led a research project in empirical educational research at the Technical University of Braunschweig. This involved a formative evaluation of the ‘An Instrument for Every Child’ (JEKI) programme in North Rhine-Westphalia and Hamburg, focusing on interprofessional cooperation between primary school and music school teachers. I have been working at the University of the Arts since May 2012, where I am a research assistant for quality management and evaluation in the Department of Music and the local coordinator for the Network of Conservatoires – a project of the Quality Pact for Teaching, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

What does your work involve? What do quality management and evaluation entail?

Quality management (QM) can be understood as a set of procedures, tools, processes and the like, which can be used to systematically improve quality – in the case of higher education institutions, this essentially refers to the quality of study programmes and teaching – at various levels. Evaluations form a central component of QM at higher education institutions. This is also one of my key areas of focus within the Network of Conservatoires. When the network was launched in 2012 as an association of twelve German conservatoires, structured evaluations at conservatoires were not widespread and were largely limited to small-scale pilot projects. One of the network’s objectives – and thus also a key focus of my work – was, and remains, to develop evaluation procedures specific to conservatoires; that is, procedures which take into account the specific learning content, formats and framework conditions of conservatoires. These evaluations then make it possible to systematically gather insight-driven data from teaching and, building on this, to improve the quality of teaching through dialogue-based processes.
Another key focus of my work and that of the network is teaching development, which essentially involves providing professional development opportunities for teaching staff. For example, we have developed the first German teaching certificate for conservatoires. A major advantage of my work is the collaboration and exchange with my colleagues in the network.

What are the distinctive features and specific characteristics of the Music department, and what requires particular attention?

If one compares teaching at conservatoires with that in academic subjects at universities, it quickly becomes clear what makes a music degree unique. In contrast to large-scale lectures, our courses take place in small groups, thereby enabling entirely different forms of interaction and learning. Simply by virtue of this group size, teaching can be structured in a much more personalised and practice-oriented way than elsewhere. Practice orientation is, in fact, the next key concept. Whilst universities have been striving for years to make their degree programmes more practice-oriented, this has always been an inherent part of a music degree, for example in one-to-one tuition and in the many projects involving artistic practice. And it is, of course, in one-to-one tuition that the very special distinctive feature of the degree programme lies. It is, so to speak, the crowning glory of individual learning and enables specialisation in an instrument or the voice. It forms the core of students’ artistic development towards musical excellence. And then there is the marked heterogeneity and diversity of the student body and teaching staff, which should also be highlighted as a distinctive feature.
The requirements for evaluations are derived from these distinctive features. Not only the assessment criteria, but also the formats of the surveys must be adapted. The small group sizes, in particular, necessitate the use of more dialogue-oriented methods rather than traditional mass surveys with anonymous questionnaires. Yet this is precisely where a great opportunity for teaching development lies, as it promotes direct exchange between lecturers and students regarding teaching. I do not view evaluations as a means of control, but rather as a tool for teaching development.

You recently carried out a student survey on digital teaching during the 2020 summer term – covering both the Department of Music and the Department of Art and Design. What were the results? 

Due to the coronavirus pandemic, teaching during the summer term had to take place almost exclusively online. This naturally posed enormous challenges for the university. With the survey – which, incidentally, also included teaching staff – I wanted to provide a database on the current state of digital teaching and highlight potential areas for development in the future. I also wanted to find out what a digitalisation of teaching specific to the arts and music might look like, because the same principle applies here as with evaluations: a one-to-one transfer of concepts from academic disciplines is neither sensible nor likely to succeed. They must be adapted or developed from scratch.

The survey revealed that one-to-one tuition in the Department of Music, in particular, could not be adequately replicated online via video conferencing. In particular, the limitations in terms of sound quality were too great, meaning that learning outcomes were lower than in face-to-face teaching. And, of course, many students lacked access to the practice rooms. In the Department of Art and Design, it was the studios and workshops that students lacked in order to be able to carry out their artistic work properly. Furthermore, presenting their own work via camera was only possible to a limited extent. During the digital semester, the majority of students from both departments particularly missed the interaction and shared exchange. Despite all this, there was certainly some positive feedback as well. For example, courses delivered in a ‘blended learning format’ – a mix of synchronous and asynchronous teaching methods – were rated positively, as were the video recordings made by music students, which were then discussed in one-to-one lessons, the shared data storage in Teams, and the generally observed improvement in punctuality for online lessons.

Will there be any next steps? How could digital teaching be improved?

Naturally, the survey should now be followed up with further measures. The question is how things will proceed in future and what digital teaching specific to art and music colleges might look like. It is also clear that this cannot adequately replace practice-oriented teaching, but there are certainly opportunities for digital support or supplementation. 

Some committees and individual lecturers have already examined the results and entered into dialogue with their students. The university management has also already done a great deal, for example with regard to purchases to support online teaching or the creation of additional classroom capacity.

What has changed at the HfK since you joined?

When I first started, many lecturers did not know how to apply and make use of evaluation in teaching and were sceptical. By presenting evaluation results and initiating follow-up measures, I was able to demonstrate that evaluations can add value to teaching, even at conservatoires. Teachers now approach me of their own accord and want to have their courses evaluated. A lot has changed, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing left to do.