ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Descriptive & Survey Study

Authors

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, Iran
Phone: +988138380090
Fax: +988138380509
motalebsm@gmail.com

Article History

Received:   August  24, 2015
Accepted:   September 26, 2015
ePublished:   October 25, 2015

ABSTRACT

Aims The process of evaluating the professors by the students, as a common method of evaluating, has many strengths and weaknesses in performance. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the stability of the evaluation of the professors by students using two different protocols.
Instrument & Methods In this interventional study in Asadabad Medical Sciences School in 2013-2014, 174 students assessed 26 professors in 53 courses at two semesters using two different methods; paper-based at one week before the end of semester (protocol A) and computer-based on the currently methods (protocol B) after the final exam. The questionnaire was the pre-defined tool in Hamadan University of Medical Sciences. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 20 and Excel 2013 software with paired T, independent T and Pearson correlation coefficient tests.
Findings The mean score of assessments in protocol A (68.99±17.73) was significantly less than the mean score of assessments in protocol B (91.78±5.40; p<0.001). In all questions, the correlation between scores in two different executive protocol was statistically significant (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the mean scores given by students according to different courses in two different protocols (p>0.05).
Conclusion Paper-based assessment of professors by students one week before the end of semester is better than the computer-based method and it can discriminate the professors better.

Keywords: Program Evaluation , Faculty, Students, Health Occupations ,

CITATION 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]