Designing and evaluation of the teaching quality assessment form from the point of view of the Lorestan University of Medical Sciences students - 2010 (original) (raw)

Abstract

Introduction: Education is basically one of the Universities' and faculties' leading missions and duties; its promoted quality will also lead to an elevated educational quality in the University. Teacher assessment can be mentioned as essential for the success of the quality promotion process. This article deals with the designing and evaluation of a teaching quality evaluation form for teachers, from the Lorestan University of Medical Science students' point of view. Methods: A two-stage, cross-sectional study was conducted on 290 Lorestan University of Medical Science students. First, evaluation priorities were extracted using the Delphi technique in the fifth section, including teaching skills, communication skills, principles of training, and skills assessment. In the second stage, as the priority and importance of each item was evaluated in the fourth Lickert option, sampling was done in few stages. The study instrument was a questionnaire, which included six areas. The first part of the questionnaire was made up of the demographic characteristics and the second part included five evaluation areas that were obtained from the student. The collected data were analyzed using statistical software SPSS-16 and chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: In the areas of teaching skills, mastery of the course, individual characteristics, self-confidence, communication skills, intimate relationship with students, educational principles, rules respecting the beginning and end time of class, skill assessment, and an accurate comprehensive examination at the end of the semester by the students, were chosen as the most important factors. There were significant differences in the majority of expressed comments between the genders and academic status (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Students can properly diagnose the essential factors in teachers' evaluation, but in item prioritizing they may be partly affected by some factors such as gender, academic status, semester, and academic course.

Figures (4)

Table 1: The frequency of student’s answers toward the importance of the teaching quality assessment form base on training skill and personal characteristics

Table 1: The frequency of student’s answers toward the importance of the teaching quality assessment form base on training skill and personal characteristics

p-value: 0.001 Table 2: The frequency of student’s answers toward teachers’ mastery of the theory, based on sex

p-value: 0.001 Table 2: The frequency of student’s answers toward teachers’ mastery of the theory, based on sex

p-value: 0.001 Table 3: The frequency of students’ answers toward validated sources used by teacher, based on se»

p-value: 0.001 Table 3: The frequency of students’ answers toward validated sources used by teacher, based on se»

Table 4: The frequency of student’s answers toward the teaching quality assessment form, importance based on communication skill, addressing educational regulations, and assessment tact were under 14, suggested that providing a suitable thinking situation for students toward lesson would be significantly essential. There was also a significant relationship between these groups (P = 0.006). of the essential components of the theoretical teaching quality form."! A scientifically qualified teacher is considered to be of high-range importance; however, a teacher who endeavors to teach students and has fluency is described as important by the students. Although teachers are theoretically eligible, some are likely to be negatively classified if they do not have fluency. Therefore, a teacher must be scientifically qualified as well as have fluency and use proper teaching methods. Ghorbani et al.’s study accentuates that some of most overriding teacher traits mentioned in the nursing College of Semnan University of Medical Science are the teacher’s mastery of the theory, fluency, lesson organizing method, and a liking to learn, respectively.?°! In the aforementioned study, there is no significant relationship among the students of different courses. Dr Moezzie’s survey also shows that there is no meaningful difference among different courses, with regard to the appropriate communication between teachers and students, teacher’s mastery of the theory, fluency, and being eligible to teach, teacher using updated sources to teach, teacher’s social behavior with student, teacher’s positive effect on the student, and accepting recommendation and criticism.” Results showed that with regard to training skills, allocating time to answer student’s questions and validated content to teach came second.

Table 4: The frequency of student’s answers toward the teaching quality assessment form, importance based on communication skill, addressing educational regulations, and assessment tact were under 14, suggested that providing a suitable thinking situation for students toward lesson would be significantly essential. There was also a significant relationship between these groups (P = 0.006). of the essential components of the theoretical teaching quality form."! A scientifically qualified teacher is considered to be of high-range importance; however, a teacher who endeavors to teach students and has fluency is described as important by the students. Although teachers are theoretically eligible, some are likely to be negatively classified if they do not have fluency. Therefore, a teacher must be scientifically qualified as well as have fluency and use proper teaching methods. Ghorbani et al.’s study accentuates that some of most overriding teacher traits mentioned in the nursing College of Semnan University of Medical Science are the teacher’s mastery of the theory, fluency, lesson organizing method, and a liking to learn, respectively.?°! In the aforementioned study, there is no significant relationship among the students of different courses. Dr Moezzie’s survey also shows that there is no meaningful difference among different courses, with regard to the appropriate communication between teachers and students, teacher’s mastery of the theory, fluency, and being eligible to teach, teacher using updated sources to teach, teacher’s social behavior with student, teacher’s positive effect on the student, and accepting recommendation and criticism.” Results showed that with regard to training skills, allocating time to answer student’s questions and validated content to teach came second.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (32)

  1. Kember D, Leung DY. Disciplinary differences in student ratings of teaching quality. Res High Educ 2011;52:278-99.
  2. Bazargan HA. Educational evaluation. Tehran: Samt Pub; 2008. p. 54-9.
  3. Seif AA. Methods of educational measurement and evaluation. Tehran: Doran Pub; 2003. p. 439-73.
  4. Li P, Wang ZW, Wang ZQ, Wang Y. Present Situation and Trend of Teaching Supervision at Colleges and Universities in China. Northwest Med Educ 2009; 2:211-2.
  5. Valle R, Alaminos I, Contreras E, Salas LE, Tomasini P, Varela M. Student questionnaire to evaluate basic medical science teaching (METEQ-B). Rev Med IMSS 2004;42:405-11.
  6. Shakournia A, Motlagh ME, Malayeri AR, Jahanmardi AR, Komaili Sani H. Students' opinion on factors affecting faculty evaluation in Jondishapoor Medical University. Iran J Med Educ 2005;5 Supp 14:101-10.
  7. 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 Health Serv 2005; 34:71-6.
  8. Bergman K, Gaitskill T. Faculty and student perceptions of effective clinical teachers: an extension study. J Prof Nurs 1990; 6:33-44.
  9. Shakurnia A, Motlagh S, Malayeri A. Students' Opinion on Factors Affecting Faculty Evaluation in Jondishapoor Medical University. Iranian J Med Educ 2002; 2:52.
  10. Sarchami R. Hoseini M. Students view points about priorities in teacher evaluation, Abstracts of 5th National Congress on Medical Education. Iranian J Med Educ 2002;2:49.
  11. Wen Sh H, Song Xu J, Carline JD, Zhong F, Zhong YJ, Shen Sh J. Effects of a teaching evaluation system: A case Study. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2:18-23.
  12. Gimbel RW, Cruess DF, Schor K, Hooper TI, Barbour GL. Faculty performance evaluation in accredited U.S public health graduate schools and programs: A national study. Acad Med 2008;83:962-8.
  13. Bland CJ, Wersal L, VanLoy W, Jacott W. Evaluating faculty performance: A systematically designed and assessed approach. Acad Med 2002; 77:15-30.
  14. Jahangiri L, Mucciolo TW, Choi M, Spielman AI. Assessment of teaching effectiveness in U.S. dental schools and the value of triangulation. J Den Educ 2008; 72:707-18.
  15. Williams BC, Pillsbury MS, Stern DT, Grum CM. Comparison of resident and medical student evaluation of faculty teaching. Eval Health Prof 2001;24:53-60.
  16. Fu L, Li J, Zhang XM. Situation and countermeasures of the educational inspection for colleges and universities. Res Med Educ 2008;11:1136-7.
  17. Wen SH, Jiang X, Jiang P. Discussion on a few problems existing in evaluation index system of teaching quality at universities and feedback. Northwest Med Educ 2004;1:20-1.
  18. Ahmadi F, Nasiriana Kh, Abazari P. Delphi technique: A Instrument in the investigation. Iranian J Med Educ 2008;8:175-85.
  19. Raoufi SH, Ebrahimzade F, Tarahi MJ, Ahmadi P. Designing a novel sheet to evaluate theoretical teaching quality of faculty members based on viewpoints of stakeholders and Charles E. Glassick's scholarship principles. J Hormozgan Med Sci 2010; 14:167-76.
  20. Ghorbani R, HajiAghajani S, Heidarifar M, Andade F, Shams- Abadi M. Viewpoints of nursing and para-medical students about the features of a good university lecturer]. Koomesh 2009; 10:78-83.
  21. Moezi M, Shirzad HA, Zamanzad B, Roohi H. Evaluation process in viewpoints of academic staff and students in Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences. J Shahrekord Univ Med Sci 2010; 11:63-75.
  22. Vakili A. Hajaghajani S. Rashidy-Pour A. Ghorbani R. An investigation of factors influencing student evaluation of teacher performance: A comprehensive study in Semnan University of Medical Sciences. Koomesh 2011; 12:93-103.
  23. Amini M, Honardar M. The view of faculties and medical students about evaluation of faculty teaching experiences. Koomesh 2008; 9:171-7.
  24. Germain ML, Seandura TA. Grade inflation and student individual differences as systematic bias in faculty evaluations. J Instr Psychol 2003; 32:58-67.
  25. M a r o u f i Y , K i a n m a n e s h A , M e h r -m o h a m m a d i M , Ali asgari M. Evaluation teaching quality in higer education: assessment of some visions. J Curriculum Stud 2007; 5:81-112.
  26. Navabi N, Jahanian I, Hajiahmadi M, Parvaneh M. Criteria for desirable Teacher from The view point of students of Babol University of Medical Science. J Babol Med Univ Sci 2010;12:7-13.
  27. Rafiei M, Mosayebi G, Nezameddin. Results of six years professors' evaluation in Arak University of Medical Sciences. Arak Med Univ J 2010; 12(4, Supp 1):52-62.
  28. Sharifi M, Jorabchi Z, Alipour M. Influence of faculties on faculty evaluation by students. J Ghazvin Med Univ Sci 2002; 22:81-7.
  29. Amini M, Najafipour S, Torkan N, Ebrahimi Nejad F. Correlation between educational performance and communication skills of Jahrom medical teachers. J Babol Univ Med Sci 2010; 12:100-5.
  30. Hajiaghajani S. Viewpoints of Shahid beheshti university faculty members about the effect of their evaluation by students on teaching activities. Res Med Sci 1999; 1:8.
  31. Aghamolaei T, Javadpour S, Abedini S. Attitude of Bandar-Abbas medical university faculty members about their assessment by the scholars. J Hormozgan Med Sci 2010; 14:234-40.
  32. Zubair A, Khoo Hoon E, Tan Chay H. A novel approach to faculty development program evaluation. Med Educ 2004; 38:1187-8.