@2024 Afarand., IRAN

---

ISSN: 2228-5468    Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2014;7(3):155-160

Background
… [1] Teachers’ evaluation by the students is a method for evaluation of educational performance and is controversial with its own opponents and proponents [2]. While some researchers authenticate student evaluations as the best evaluation kind (since the students are the only persons who are directly educated by the teachers), their opponents understand the students’ viewpoints as affected by factors which are not related to the teacher and her teaching method [3-5]. Other methods also like evaluations by colleagues, department heads, and deans have been used in some universities [6, 7]. … [8] To increase the credibility of the results of the teachers’ evaluations, the use of different sources with integration of their results as the final score on the teachers’ performance has been proposed [9-12]. Evaluating the correspondence between the results obtained from the sources can be helpful to explain credibility of the evaluations. High correlation between the evaluation results will show consistency between different groups on the teachers’ evaluation, as well as the needed credibility for the results.
Previous Studies
There are few studies regarding the characteristics of the methods. Some studies have been done using different methods for teachers’ evaluation [8, 13] and about the results of student evaluations [3, 14-16]. There is a correlation between the teachers’ evaluation scores given by different groups in some cases [6, 7]. As in other universities, in Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences different methods for evaluation, such as evaluation by the students, department heads, and deans are currently being done. Hitherto, some studies have been done regarding student evaluation of the teachers [9, 17], but on other evaluation methods and credibility of the evaluation sources, there are only few studies.
Aim(s)
The Aim of this study was to determine the correlation between the teachers’ evaluation scores given by the students, department heads, and deans.
Research type
This is a descriptive cross-sectional study.
Research society, place and time
Teachers’ evaluation scores of basic-sciences faculty members of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Iran, in 2011-12 academic years were studied.
Sampling method and number
The teachers’ evaluation scores (205 scores) were of all non-clinical faculty members of the university, given to the university teachers by the students, department heads, and deans groups.
Used devices&materials
To collect data three separate questionnaires were used. The 15-question students’ questionnaire was regarding teaching method, class management, teacher’s academic ability, and teacher’s discipline and morality and behavior. The 11-question department heads’ questionnaire was considered discipline and rules, seriousness and cooperation in education and research, academic ability, and teacher’s teaching quality. The third 8-question questionnaire evaluated teaching abilities, teacher’s scientific and behavioral characteristics, interaction with the educational environment, presence, discipline, and teacher’s cooperation and seriousness in the assignments. The questionnaires were adjusted from ‘excellent’ to ‘very weak’ based on Likrt’s 5-score scale. Validity and reliability of the students’ questionnaire had been assessed and confirmed at the university. Of two other questionnaires, validity and reliability had been assessed and confirmed through the surveys from teachers and experts and determining Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient [18]. Necessary information, including raw scores and mean values of the teachers’ scores given by the students, department heads, and deans, were extracted from documents of Education Development Center of the university and evaluated. Data were analyzed using SPSS 18 software and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Findings by Text
86 persons (42.0%) and 119 persons (58.0%) were female and male, respectively. 83 persons (40.5%), 102 persons (49.8%), and 20 persons (9.8%) were lecturers, assistant professors, and associate professors and professors, respectively. 59 persons (28.8%), 38 persons (18.5%), 23 persons (11.2%), 27 persons (13.2%), 23 persons (11.2%), 20 persons (9.8%), and 15 persons (7.3%) were from faculty of medicine, faculty of dentistry, faculty of pharmacy, faculty of health, faculty of paramedical sciences, faculty of nursing midwifery, and faculty of rehabilitation, respectively. Mean values of teachers’ evaluation scores, given by the students, department heads, and deans, were 4.07±0.40,4.44±0.49,and 4.39±0.52, respectively (Table 1). There were no significant correlation between teachers’ evaluation scores given by the students and department heads, and given by the students and deans. Nevertheless, the correlation between teachers’ evaluation scores given by department heads and deans was significant.
Main comparison to the similar studies
The results showed no significant correlation between the students’ viewpoints and department heads and deans’ viewpoints. However, there was a statistical significant correlation between department heads’ viewpoints and deans’ viewpoints. The results are consistent with the results of a study showed no important difference between mean scores of teachers’ evaluation from department heads’ viewpoints and deans’ viewpoints and mean scores obtained from self-assessment, and higher mean score of teachers’ evaluation from the students’ viewpoints than other scores. In the mentioned study, consistency between deans and department heads on teachers’ evaluation has been reported higher than their consistency with the students [6]. Studying medical faculty, moderate statistical correlation between educational head and deputy’s viewpoints has been reported, while there has been no correlation between other factors including students, residents, department heads, and dean’s viewpoints [7]. There is a significant difference between the teachers’ evaluation scores given by the students and by the officials, while there is no significant difference between the students’ evaluation scores in basic, clinical, and nursing and midwifery groups, in spite of significant difference between the officials’ scores in three groups [19]. A poor correlation has been reported between the teachers’ evaluation scores given by the students and their self-assessment, with higher self-assessment scores of most of the university teachers than their evaluation scores given by the students [20]. The results of the present study showed a poor difference between mean scores of department heads and deans and showing considerable difference between their viewpoints and the students’ viewpoints, reported that department heads confirmed the faculty members in higher degree than deans and students did, while the latter confirmed them in lesser degree than heads. The results are consistent with the results of another study [7]. … [21-23]
Suggestions
Complementary studies on the effective factors on viewpoints of every group, especially contents of the questionnaires, ought to be conducted to determine completely the relation between viewpoints of different groups including the students. In addition, more studies with greater sample sizes have to be done.
Limitations
The sample size and limitation of the results to only one university were of the limitations for the study. Therefore, any generalization has to be done cautiously.
Conclusions
The agreement between the department heads and deans for teachers’ evaluation with each other is more than the agreement with each of these groups with students'.
Acknowledgments
The researchers feel grateful to the manager of the University Education Development Center for information availability.
Conflict of interest
Non-declared
Ethical Permissions
All procedures were approved by the University Education Development Center for Medical Sciences. All teachers’ evaluation scores were anonymous.
Funding Sources
Non-declared

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file