76
F. Körner et al.
proposals from the other ministries. Afterwards, the bills were discussed in plenary
session, before a vote was held on each bill. Three of the proposed laws were not
considered suitable and were rejected by parliament. In order to make the discussions of the government program (i.e. all the passed bills combined) somewhat more
realistic—not every desired measure can be implemented due to financial restrictions—the Ministry of Finance set a limited (point) budget of 20 points. The costs
of the implementation of each bill were estimated by the Ministry of Finance (= the
teaching staff) in points from 0 to 5, also. Consequently, the students were asked to
vote on the ranking of laws in a second ballot to decide which laws should actually
be included in the government program.
To celebrate the success of the consultation process, a “press conference” was
held in the last session, to which the speakers and supporters of the course were
also invited. After a press release by the “government spokesman” (member of
the teaching staff), in which the background of the seminar was briefly explained,
students from each group presented the individual laws as spokespersons of their
ministries. Afterwards, the audience had the opportunity to ask questions.
3 Feedback and Evaluation
Besides the press conference, the evaluation of the course was also part of the last
session. Before the event ended informally in the local beer garden, the students were
asked to give feedback on the course on prepared flipcharts: What did they like?
What needs to be changed/improved? Do they have further comments on certain
aspects of the course like organization, their motivation and what they learned?
Overall, the course received a lot of positive feedback. Students were interested in
climate change adaptation. They liked the workshops with the different experts taking
place in changed venues, especially the workshop on climate change adaptation
and energy and mobility, and the debates in the end of the course, which “were
much more interesting than expected”. The students reported the course had “good
communication, open dialogue and a pleasant atmosphere”. A number of students
held that the expenditure, meaning the time and effort they put in the course, was too
high and others complained that it was difficult to integrate the alternating dates for
the sessions into their schedule. This is partly due to the desired interdisciplinarity,
as the different study programs of the participants also result in different schedules.
Here, the goal is for an even better coordination with the various courses of study in
2020.
In addition to the overall evaluation at the end of the course, students were asked
to give feedback after each workshop, as well. For that, a really short questionnaire
with questions regarding the topic of the workshop, the speakers, the overall comprehensibility, the gain of knowledge, the interaction, the overall assessment (grade) and
further comments was prepared and given to the students at the end of each workshop. The individual evaluations of the various workshops were also positive, for
example, the students reported back that they liked the guided tour through the state
F. Körner et al.
proposals from the other ministries. Afterwards, the bills were discussed in plenary
session, before a vote was held on each bill. Three of the proposed laws were not
considered suitable and were rejected by parliament. In order to make the discussions of the government program (i.e. all the passed bills combined) somewhat more
realistic—not every desired measure can be implemented due to financial restrictions—the Ministry of Finance set a limited (point) budget of 20 points. The costs
of the implementation of each bill were estimated by the Ministry of Finance (= the
teaching staff) in points from 0 to 5, also. Consequently, the students were asked to
vote on the ranking of laws in a second ballot to decide which laws should actually
be included in the government program.
To celebrate the success of the consultation process, a “press conference” was
held in the last session, to which the speakers and supporters of the course were
also invited. After a press release by the “government spokesman” (member of
the teaching staff), in which the background of the seminar was briefly explained,
students from each group presented the individual laws as spokespersons of their
ministries. Afterwards, the audience had the opportunity to ask questions.
3 Feedback and Evaluation
Besides the press conference, the evaluation of the course was also part of the last
session. Before the event ended informally in the local beer garden, the students were
asked to give feedback on the course on prepared flipcharts: What did they like?
What needs to be changed/improved? Do they have further comments on certain
aspects of the course like organization, their motivation and what they learned?
Overall, the course received a lot of positive feedback. Students were interested in
climate change adaptation. They liked the workshops with the different experts taking
place in changed venues, especially the workshop on climate change adaptation
and energy and mobility, and the debates in the end of the course, which “were
much more interesting than expected”. The students reported the course had “good
communication, open dialogue and a pleasant atmosphere”. A number of students
held that the expenditure, meaning the time and effort they put in the course, was too
high and others complained that it was difficult to integrate the alternating dates for
the sessions into their schedule. This is partly due to the desired interdisciplinarity,
as the different study programs of the participants also result in different schedules.
Here, the goal is for an even better coordination with the various courses of study in
2020.
In addition to the overall evaluation at the end of the course, students were asked
to give feedback after each workshop, as well. For that, a really short questionnaire
with questions regarding the topic of the workshop, the speakers, the overall comprehensibility, the gain of knowledge, the interaction, the overall assessment (grade) and
further comments was prepared and given to the students at the end of each workshop. The individual evaluations of the various workshops were also positive, for
example, the students reported back that they liked the guided tour through the state