Authors
1 Clinical Sciences Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2 Quality improvement in Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3 Baghiat Allah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Health Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: This study was conducted to determine the most importantstrengths and weaknesses of the present evaluation system in Tehran University of Medical Sciences and achieve the main factors to improve this system.Method: It was a mixed method study design in two separate and sequential phases. The first phase was a qualitative step applying a document analysis method to interpret the present situation and the second was a quantitative phase applying a three dimensional questionnaire to collect teachers’ viewpoints for improving the system.Results: The findings indicated that the present system had 3 strengths versus 7 weaknesses. The quantitative phase demonstrated that the comprehensive and mixed evaluation method was preferred as the best method of evaluation, followed by self evaluation, students` output and students’ evaluation of teachers. Other findings showed that %95.7 of faculty members were in favor of “using the result for correcting teachers’ practice”. %88.4 of the participants found “secret feedback of evaluation results” and %86.3 the students` comments as the best options. %95.8 mentioned that transmitting the concepts by teachers as the most appropriate question.Conclusion: It seems that the mixed method evaluation is the only way ending in complete feedback of teaching quality and matches 360 degree evaluation. So it is important to correct and review the students’ forms along with designing other tools for assessing managers, peers and colleagues and also designing log books and observation sheets, etc. to achieve a comprehensive and mixed package of evaluation.Keywords: Teacher evaluation, Medical faculty, Mixed evaluation method
- Shinkfield AJ, Stufflebeam D. Teacher evaluation: guide to
- effective practice. Boston: Kluwe Academic Publisher; 1999.
- Boyle P, Pettigrove M, Atkinson C. Australian national
- university student evaluation of teaching ANUSET: a guide
- for academic staff. Canbera: Australian National University;
- Bland CJ, Wersal L, VanLoy W, Jacott W. Evaluating faculty
- performance: a systematically designed and assessed
- approach. Acad Med. 2002 Jan;77(1):15-30.
- Causeman R, Hermen J. Strategic planning in educational
- system (reevaluating, reconstructing the structures,
- regenerating). Tehran: Madreseh; 2005. Book in Persian.
- Alkin MC, Dewy A. Three Decades of Curriculum Evaluation:
- An Introduction, in lewy A(Ed). The international
- Encyclopedia of Curriculum. London: Pergmon; 2007.
- Nelsons MS. Pre evaluation of teaching of approach whose
- time has come. Acad Med. 1998;83:4-5.
- Henderson ME, Morris LL, Fits Gibbon CT. How to measure
- Attitudes.2007.
- Danaiee Fard H, Mozaffari Z. Reliability and validity
- improvement in qualitative management researches: a veiw
- on research evaluation strategies. Management Researches.
- ;1(1):131-62. Persian.
- Ferenz, M. Nilsen K, Walters G. Research methods in
- management. SAGE publication Ltd; 2009.
- Aultmon LP. A. An Unexpected benefit of formative student
- evaluation. College teaching. 2006;54:251-8.
- Dargahee H, Movahed Kar E, Shaham GH. The survey on
- faculty members view points about students questionnaire
- for teachers evaluation in paraclinical school Tehran
- University of Medical Sciences. Payavarde salamat.
- ;3(1):75-84. Persian.
- Fatahi Z, Adhami A, Nouhi E, Nakhaei N, Islami Nejad T.
- Kerman University of Medical Sciences` Faculty Members
- view points about teachers evaluation in the year 2001-2.
- Hormozgan Medical Journal. 2004;9(1):59-66. Persian.
- Yamani N, Yousefi AR, Changiz T. Presenting a Collaborative
- model in teachers` evaluation,. Iranian journal of education
- in medical sciences. 2005;6(2):120-8. Persian.
- Rahimi M, Zarvaj h, Darabian M, Taherian AA, Jhosravi
- A. A Systematic review on teachers evaluation by students.
- Development peaces in Medical Education. 2012;9(1):34-45.
- Persian.
- Shakour Nia AH, Motlagh ME, Malayeri AR, Jahan Mardi
- AR, Komeili Sani H. Jondi Shapour University of medical
- sciences students` view points about effective factors on
- teacher evaluation,. Iranian Journal of Education in Medical
- Sciences,. 2005;5(2):101-10. Persian.
- Vakilee A, Haji Agjaee S, Rashidi Poor A, Ghorbani R. The
- survey of effective factors on teacher evaluation from the
- students` points of view: A systematis review in Semnan
- University of Medical Sciences. Koomesh. 2010;12(2):93-
- Persian.
- Najafi Pour S, Amini M. Review of the professorsâ opinions
- of Jahrom Medical Sciences faculty towards the evaluation
- of professor by the student. Iranian Education Journal in
- Medical Sciences. 2002;7(237). Persian.
- Afshar M, Hassan Zadeh Taheri MM, Riasati HR, Naseri
- M. Faculty members` evaluation by different levels of
- students. Birjand University of Medical Sciences Journal.
- ;17(2):118-26. Persian.
- Amini M, Honar Dar M. Teacher evaluation from Jahrom
- University of Medical Sciences students and teachers` points
- of view,. Semnan University of Medical Sciences Journal.
- ;9(3):171-8. Persian.
- Raofi SH, Sheikhian A, Ibrahim Zadeh F, Tarahi MJ, Afmadi
- P. Designing a novel sheet to evaluate theoretical teaching
- quality of faculty members based on view points of
- stakeholders and Charles E. Glassick`s scholarship principals.
- Hormozgan Medical Journal. 2010;4(3):167-76. Persian.
- Emdadi SH, Amani F, Soltanian AR, Imeni B, Maghsood
- AH, Shojaee S, et al. A Study of Reliaability and Validity of
- the Teacher Evaluation Form nd Factors Affecting Studentâs
- Evaluation of Teachers. Strides in Development of Medical
- Education. 2013;10(1):87-9. Persian.
)