@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2015;8(4):209-214
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2015;8(4):209-214
Comprison of the Assessment of Professors by Students Based on Two Different Protocols; Asadabad Medical Sciences Faculty, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Descriptive & Survey StudyAuthors
Faradmal J. (1)Asgari Gh. (2)
Faghfourian H. (4)
Shiri H. (3)
Seidmohammadi A. (*)
(*) Environmental Health Engineering Department, Health Faculty, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
(1) Biostatistics Department, Health Faculty, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
(2) Environmental Health Engineering Department, Health Faculty, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
(3) Public Health Department, Asadabad Medical Sciences Faculty, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
(4) Sport Biomechanics Department, Physical Education Faculty, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
Correspondence
Address: Environmental Health Engineering Department, Health Faculty, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Fahmideh Street, Hamadan, IranPhone: +988138380090
Fax: +988138380509
motalebsm@gmail.com
Article History
Received: August 24, 2015Accepted: September 26, 2015
ePublished: October 25, 2015
BRIEF TEXT
… [1-9] Despite all the differences between opinions on the application of teacher evaluation by students, this evaluation is increasingly used by students as a reliable and credible source in higher education institutions for making various decisions [8, 10-15]. Students` insufficient knowledge to judge the quality of teaching, the effect of personal judgments, time for evaluation of the performance, and the method of evaluation are the main shortcomings of this method of evaluation [13, 14].
Some persons oppose the teacher evaluation by students, but others assess it as a valuable source of feedback to teachers to improve the quality of teaching [16-23]. At Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, more than 65% of professors did not accept the results of this evaluation [15]. … [24]
The aim of this study was to evaluate consistency of evaluation of professors by students, according to two different protocols.
This is an interventional study.
All students in Asadabad Faculty of Medical Sciences (Iran) who were studying in three fields including nursing in undergraduate level, public health in undergraduate level, and medical emergency in the associate level were studied in the academic year of 2014-2015.
Samples were selected based on census method. Totally 26 professors who were teaching 53 courses were evaluated by 174 students in two different semesters based on two protocols.
At the end of each consecutive semester, teacher evaluation by students, in the first round was carried out a week before the exam, and in paper-based form using a standard evaluation form in which the profile of the relevant course and teacher were specified (Protocol A). At the next stage, the evaluation was conducted as computer-based form on the conventional method in the Asadabad Faculty of Medical Sciences and through Sama System (Protocol B). In each semester, 4 courses were randomly selected and the questionnaire relevant to instructors` evaluation by students of that specific course was extracted based on executive protocols. The questionnaire used for this study was a tool defined by Hamedan University of Medical Sciences including 18 multiple choice questions as excellent, good, average, and poor which was evaluating the university instructors` performance from the students` point of view at the end of each semester. After collecting data and enter it in Excel 2013 software, it was monitored and then the information was transferred to SPSS 20 software. Descriptive statistics, including tables, indexes and charts were used to describe the characteristics of the studied population, and inferential statistics such as Independent T-test, Paired T-test, and Pearson`s Correlation Coefficient or their nonparametric forms were used for data analysis.
The results of evaluation of 53 courses including 21(40%) of courses in the second semester of 2014 and 32 (60%) of courses in the first semester of 2015 were investigated. The mean scores were different in two executive protocols in the way that the mean score in the protocol A was less than the mean scores in the protocol B. Also, the standard deviation of scores in protocol A was more than the standard deviation of scores in protocol B. The mean score of two executive protocols was statistically different in general and separately for each question (table 1). Also, the correlation between the total score of all statements was significant. The mean score received by students in nursing, emergency medicine and health in protocol A were 68.47 ± 18.38, 81.18 ± 10.89 and 65.40 ± 17.68 respectively. And there were 91.93 ± 4.58, 90.07 ± 5.90 and 96.49 ± 2.66 in the protocol B respectively. There was no significant difference between the protocols. Also, the mean of change in the score of evaluation by the students based on the two executive protocols in the two consecutive semesters of 2014 and 2015 were 23.11 ±12.52 and 23.54 ± 16.58 respectively. And it did not show a significant difference. The other studied parameters were the possibility of changing the student evaluation score in the two protocols based on the number of spent semesters. The results showed no significant differences in changes in teacher evaluation score based on this factor. Also, the levels of change in the score of teacher evaluation by students in general and specialized courses in the second semester of 2014 and in the first semester of 2015 were 34.02 ± 15.17 and 21.65 ± 13.28 respectively. And it showed statistically significant difference.
Teacher evaluation by students is a valuable source for giving feedback to professors in order to improve the quality of teaching [20]. Because of the effect of personality traits and characteristics on people`s understanding and judgment, this kind of evaluation is not appropriate [21, 25]. The distribution of evaluation scores was more in protocol A compared to protocol B indicating greater difference between teachers` evaluation scores based on protocol A. There are no similar paper-based and computer-based studies on the impact of the implementation of teacher evaluation by students. The majority of university instructors and students assess the time of university instructors` evaluation as an important factor in the evaluating score [19]. The time of evaluation is one of effective factors in the university instructors` evaluation by students from the faculty members` point of view [26]. About 61% of students considered tough test as an effective factor in university instructors` evaluation [18]. Based on this study, the best time for evaluation from the perspective of significant number of university instructors and students is at the end of the semester and before the exams. And based on the views of some of the instructors, the best time for evaluation is during the semester as a continuous method, which is consistent with the present results.
Before the exam, instructors` evaluation by students should be carried out electronically.
One of the limitations of this study was inability of researchers to isolate the effects of the implementation of the study in paper-based form and electronic system based in collecting data.
Evaluation of instructors by students in paper-based method and before exam scoring by instructors is more appropriate and leads to a higher differentiation among university instructors compared to instructors' evaluation by students in computer-based method and during exam scoring by the university instructors.
Education Deputy of Asadabad Education Faculty of Medical Sciences is appreciated.
There was no case.
All questionnaires were name-less and without any other characteristics of the students.
This project was funded by Medical Education Development Center for Education Deputy and Research and Technology Deputy of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences.
TABLES and CHARTS
Show attach fileCITIATION LINKS
[1]Shakournia A, Elhampour H, Mozafari A, Dasht Bozorgi B. Ten Year Trends in Faculty Members' Evaluation Resultsin Jondi Shapour University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2008;7(2):309-16. [Persian]
[2]Ziaee M, Miri M, Haji-abadi M, Azarkar Gh, Eshbak P. Academic staff and students' impressions on academic evaluation of students in Birjand university of medical sciences and health services. J Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2007;13(4):9-15. [Persian]
[3]Komeili GR, Rezaei GA. Study of student evaluation by basic sciences’ instructors in Zahedan University of Medical Sciences in 2001. Iran J Med Educ. 2002;2:37.
[4]Rafiei M, Mosayebi G. Results of six years professors’ evaluation in Arak university of medical sciences. J Arak Univ Med Sci. 2010;12(4):52-62. [Persian]
[5]Ghafourian Borujerdi M, Shakournia A, Elhampour H. Evaluation results feed back to faculty members of Ahvaz medical university and its effect on improving the quality of teaching. Iran J Med Educ. 2003;3(2):41-6. [Persian]
[6]Smith P. Student rating of teaching effectiveness: an analysis of end of course faculty evaluations. Coll Stud J. 2007;41(4):788-95.
[7]Alhija FNA, Fresko B. Student evaluation of instruction: What can be learned from students’ written comments?. Stud Educ Eval. 2009;35(1):37-44.
[8]Beheshti Rad R, Ghalavandi H, Ghale’ei AR. Faculty members performance evaluation by nursing students; Urmia University of Medical Sciences . Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2014;6(4):223-8. [Persian]
[9]Aghamolayi T, Abedini S. Comparison of self and students' evaluation of faculty members in school of health of Hormozgan university of medical sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2008;7(2):191-9. [Persian]
[10]Raeesifar A, Khaghanizade M, Ebadi A, Masomi M. Review on conventional evaluation method of faculty members emphasis on students' evaluation method of faculty members. Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2008;1(1):10-8. [Persian]
[11]Sarchami R, Salmanzadeh H. The opinions of faculty on the efficiency of student rating scheme on teachers' performance in Iran university of medical sciences. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci. 2005;34(1):67-71. [Persian]
[12]McPherson MA. Determinants of how students evaluate teachers. J Econ Educ. 2006;37(1):3-20.
[13]Shakurnia A, Motlagh ME, Malayeri AR, Jouhanmardi A, Komaili Sani H. Students’ opinion on factors affecting faculty evaluation in Jondishapoor medical university. Iran J Med Educ. 2005;5(2):101-10. [Persian]
[14]Karimi F, Kafi M, Mousavi SV, Mousavi SH, Ofoghi N. A study of academic staffs point of view about their evaluation by students. Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2012;4(4):171-5.
[15]Ahmadian E. Study on medicine, pharmacology and dental faculty members opinion about students' evaluation of faculty members [Dissertation]. Hamadan: Dental Faculty, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences; 2011. [Persian]
[16]Zibaei M, Kamaran A. Designing and evaluating teaching quality assessment from the viewpoint of Lorestan university of medical sciences students in 2010. J Med Edu Dev. 2012;5(8):58-68. [Persian] http://www.zums.ac.ir/edujournal/browse.php?a_code=A-12-63-1&slc_lang=fa&sid=1
[17]Fatahi Z, Adhami A, Nakhaee N, Eslaminejad T, Nohi E. Kerman university of medical sciences faculty members opinion about faculty members evolution in 2003. Hormozgan Med J. 2005;9(1):59-66. [Persian]
[18]Amini M, Honardar M. The view of faculties and medical students about evaluation of faculty teaching experiences. J Semnan Univ Med Sci. 2008;9(3):171-8. [Persian]
[19]Ranjbar M, Vahidshahi K, Mahmoudi M. Viewpoints of the attendings and medical students about the Students' evaluation of the attendings, Mazandaran. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2007;16(56):126-35. [Persian]
[20]Ryan JJ, Anderson JA, Birchler AB. Student evaluation: The faculty responds. Res High Educ. 1980;12(4):317-33.
[21]Spencer PA, Flyr ML. The formal evaluation as an impetus to classroom change: Myth or reality?. California: University of California; 1992.
[22]Emdadi S, Amani F, Soltanian A, Imani B, Maghsoud A, Shojaeei S, et al. A study of reliability and validity of the teacher evaluation form and factors affecting student's evaluation of teachers. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2013;10(1):87-94. [Persian]
[23]Yamani N, Yousefy A, Changiz T. Proposing a participatory model of teacher evaluation. Iran J Med Educ. 2006;6(2):115-22. [Persian]
[24]Ghahramani M, Arefi M, Jamshidi L. Study the Effect of Student Evaluation on Faculty Members’ Educational Performance between 2000-01 to 2005-06. Q J Res Plan High Educ. 2008;14(2):1-26. [Persian]
[25]Greenwood GE, Bridges CM, Ware WB, McLean JE. Student evaluation of college teaching behaviors instrument: A factor analysis. High Educ J. 1973;44(8):596-604.
[26]Arabi Mianroodi A, Asgari Baravati Z, Khanjani N. Explaining the pros and cons of different sources of Faculty Evaluation from the viewpoints of medical university academics. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2012;9(1):65-76. [Persian]
[2]Ziaee M, Miri M, Haji-abadi M, Azarkar Gh, Eshbak P. Academic staff and students' impressions on academic evaluation of students in Birjand university of medical sciences and health services. J Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2007;13(4):9-15. [Persian]
[3]Komeili GR, Rezaei GA. Study of student evaluation by basic sciences’ instructors in Zahedan University of Medical Sciences in 2001. Iran J Med Educ. 2002;2:37.
[4]Rafiei M, Mosayebi G. Results of six years professors’ evaluation in Arak university of medical sciences. J Arak Univ Med Sci. 2010;12(4):52-62. [Persian]
[5]Ghafourian Borujerdi M, Shakournia A, Elhampour H. Evaluation results feed back to faculty members of Ahvaz medical university and its effect on improving the quality of teaching. Iran J Med Educ. 2003;3(2):41-6. [Persian]
[6]Smith P. Student rating of teaching effectiveness: an analysis of end of course faculty evaluations. Coll Stud J. 2007;41(4):788-95.
[7]Alhija FNA, Fresko B. Student evaluation of instruction: What can be learned from students’ written comments?. Stud Educ Eval. 2009;35(1):37-44.
[8]Beheshti Rad R, Ghalavandi H, Ghale’ei AR. Faculty members performance evaluation by nursing students; Urmia University of Medical Sciences . Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2014;6(4):223-8. [Persian]
[9]Aghamolayi T, Abedini S. Comparison of self and students' evaluation of faculty members in school of health of Hormozgan university of medical sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2008;7(2):191-9. [Persian]
[10]Raeesifar A, Khaghanizade M, Ebadi A, Masomi M. Review on conventional evaluation method of faculty members emphasis on students' evaluation method of faculty members. Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2008;1(1):10-8. [Persian]
[11]Sarchami R, Salmanzadeh H. The opinions of faculty on the efficiency of student rating scheme on teachers' performance in Iran university of medical sciences. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci. 2005;34(1):67-71. [Persian]
[12]McPherson MA. Determinants of how students evaluate teachers. J Econ Educ. 2006;37(1):3-20.
[13]Shakurnia A, Motlagh ME, Malayeri AR, Jouhanmardi A, Komaili Sani H. Students’ opinion on factors affecting faculty evaluation in Jondishapoor medical university. Iran J Med Educ. 2005;5(2):101-10. [Persian]
[14]Karimi F, Kafi M, Mousavi SV, Mousavi SH, Ofoghi N. A study of academic staffs point of view about their evaluation by students. Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2012;4(4):171-5.
[15]Ahmadian E. Study on medicine, pharmacology and dental faculty members opinion about students' evaluation of faculty members [Dissertation]. Hamadan: Dental Faculty, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences; 2011. [Persian]
[16]Zibaei M, Kamaran A. Designing and evaluating teaching quality assessment from the viewpoint of Lorestan university of medical sciences students in 2010. J Med Edu Dev. 2012;5(8):58-68. [Persian] http://www.zums.ac.ir/edujournal/browse.php?a_code=A-12-63-1&slc_lang=fa&sid=1
[17]Fatahi Z, Adhami A, Nakhaee N, Eslaminejad T, Nohi E. Kerman university of medical sciences faculty members opinion about faculty members evolution in 2003. Hormozgan Med J. 2005;9(1):59-66. [Persian]
[18]Amini M, Honardar M. The view of faculties and medical students about evaluation of faculty teaching experiences. J Semnan Univ Med Sci. 2008;9(3):171-8. [Persian]
[19]Ranjbar M, Vahidshahi K, Mahmoudi M. Viewpoints of the attendings and medical students about the Students' evaluation of the attendings, Mazandaran. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2007;16(56):126-35. [Persian]
[20]Ryan JJ, Anderson JA, Birchler AB. Student evaluation: The faculty responds. Res High Educ. 1980;12(4):317-33.
[21]Spencer PA, Flyr ML. The formal evaluation as an impetus to classroom change: Myth or reality?. California: University of California; 1992.
[22]Emdadi S, Amani F, Soltanian A, Imani B, Maghsoud A, Shojaeei S, et al. A study of reliability and validity of the teacher evaluation form and factors affecting student's evaluation of teachers. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2013;10(1):87-94. [Persian]
[23]Yamani N, Yousefy A, Changiz T. Proposing a participatory model of teacher evaluation. Iran J Med Educ. 2006;6(2):115-22. [Persian]
[24]Ghahramani M, Arefi M, Jamshidi L. Study the Effect of Student Evaluation on Faculty Members’ Educational Performance between 2000-01 to 2005-06. Q J Res Plan High Educ. 2008;14(2):1-26. [Persian]
[25]Greenwood GE, Bridges CM, Ware WB, McLean JE. Student evaluation of college teaching behaviors instrument: A factor analysis. High Educ J. 1973;44(8):596-604.
[26]Arabi Mianroodi A, Asgari Baravati Z, Khanjani N. Explaining the pros and cons of different sources of Faculty Evaluation from the viewpoints of medical university academics. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2012;9(1):65-76. [Persian]