Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism

Faculty members’ viewpoints about the present and the ideal teacher evaluation system in Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Authors

PEIVAND BASTANI 1
MITRA AMINI 2
KEYGHOBAD TAHER NEJAD 3
NASRIN SHAARBAFCHI ZADEH 4

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
  1. Shinkfield AJ, Stufflebeam D. Teacher evaluation: guide to
  2. effective practice. Boston: Kluwe Academic Publisher; 1999.
  3. Boyle P, Pettigrove M, Atkinson C. Australian national
  4. university student evaluation of teaching ANUSET: a guide
  5. for academic staff. Canbera: Australian National University;
  6. Bland CJ, Wersal L, VanLoy W, Jacott W. Evaluating faculty
  7. performance: a systematically designed and assessed
  8. approach. Acad Med. 2002 Jan;77(1):15-30.
  9. Causeman R, Hermen J. Strategic planning in educational
  10. system (reevaluating, reconstructing the structures,
  11. regenerating). Tehran: Madreseh; 2005. Book in Persian.
  12. Alkin MC, Dewy A. Three Decades of Curriculum Evaluation:
  13. An Introduction, in lewy A(Ed). The international
  14. Encyclopedia of Curriculum. London: Pergmon; 2007.
  15. Nelsons MS. Pre evaluation of teaching of approach whose
  16. time has come. Acad Med. 1998;83:4-5.
  17. Henderson ME, Morris LL, Fits Gibbon CT. How to measure
  18. Attitudes.2007.
  19. Danaiee Fard H, Mozaffari Z. Reliability and validity
  20. improvement in qualitative management researches: a veiw
  21. on research evaluation strategies. Management Researches.
  22. ;1(1):131-62. Persian.
  23. Ferenz, M. Nilsen K, Walters G. Research methods in
  24. management. SAGE publication Ltd; 2009.
  25. Aultmon LP. A. An Unexpected benefit of formative student
  26. evaluation. College teaching. 2006;54:251-8.
  27. Dargahee H, Movahed Kar E, Shaham GH. The survey on
  28. faculty members view points about students questionnaire
  29. for teachers evaluation in paraclinical school Tehran
  30. University of Medical Sciences. Payavarde salamat.
  31. ;3(1):75-84. Persian.
  32. Fatahi Z, Adhami A, Nouhi E, Nakhaei N, Islami Nejad T.
  33. Kerman University of Medical Sciences` Faculty Members
  34. view points about teachers evaluation in the year 2001-2.
  35. Hormozgan Medical Journal. 2004;9(1):59-66. Persian.
  36. Yamani N, Yousefi AR, Changiz T. Presenting a Collaborative
  37. model in teachers` evaluation,. Iranian journal of education
  38. in medical sciences. 2005;6(2):120-8. Persian.
  39. Rahimi M, Zarvaj h, Darabian M, Taherian AA, Jhosravi
  40. A. A Systematic review on teachers evaluation by students.
  41. Development peaces in Medical Education. 2012;9(1):34-45.
  42. Persian.
  43. Shakour Nia AH, Motlagh ME, Malayeri AR, Jahan Mardi
  44. AR, Komeili Sani H. Jondi Shapour University of medical
  45. sciences students` view points about effective factors on
  46. teacher evaluation,. Iranian Journal of Education in Medical
  47. Sciences,. 2005;5(2):101-10. Persian.
  48. Vakilee A, Haji Agjaee S, Rashidi Poor A, Ghorbani R. The
  49. survey of effective factors on teacher evaluation from the
  50. students` points of view: A systematis review in Semnan
  51. University of Medical Sciences. Koomesh. 2010;12(2):93-
  52. Persian.
  53. Najafi Pour S, Amini M. Review of the professors’ opinions
  54. of Jahrom Medical Sciences faculty towards the evaluation
  55. of professor by the student. Iranian Education Journal in
  56. Medical Sciences. 2002;7(237). Persian.
  57. Afshar M, Hassan Zadeh Taheri MM, Riasati HR, Naseri
  58. M. Faculty members` evaluation by different levels of
  59. students. Birjand University of Medical Sciences Journal.
  60. ;17(2):118-26. Persian.
  61. Amini M, Honar Dar M. Teacher evaluation from Jahrom
  62. University of Medical Sciences students and teachers` points
  63. of view,. Semnan University of Medical Sciences Journal.
  64. ;9(3):171-8. Persian.
  65. Raofi SH, Sheikhian A, Ibrahim Zadeh F, Tarahi MJ, Afmadi
  66. P. Designing a novel sheet to evaluate theoretical teaching
  67. quality of faculty members based on view points of
  68. stakeholders and Charles E. Glassick`s scholarship principals.
  69. Hormozgan Medical Journal. 2010;4(3):167-76. Persian.
  70. Emdadi SH, Amani F, Soltanian AR, Imeni B, Maghsood
  71. AH, Shojaee S, et al. A Study of Reliaability and Validity of
  72. the Teacher Evaluation Form nd Factors Affecting Student’s
  73. Evaluation of Teachers. Strides in Development of Medical
  74. Education. 2013;10(1):87-9. Persian.
Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism
Volume 1, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
2
Autumn 2013
Pages 140-147

Home

Guide for Authors

Fee

Forms

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Reviewers

Contact Us