Are online student evaluations of faculty influenced by the timing of evaluations?

Variables influencing students' course quality evaluation: A cross-sectional study for a bachelor's degree dental program

PURPOSE

This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate and predict variables that influence the Students' Course Evaluation Surveys (SCES) in a bachelor's degree of dental medicine and surgery program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from the Faculty of Dental Medicine for the academic year 2021-2022 were analyzed including 39 course reports, students' course evaluation surveys, students' academic performance data, and the program specification. The survey contains 24 statements that evaluate five main domains of the courses, which are course syllabus, staff performance through the course, course learning resources, course execution, and course quality.

RESULTS

Chi-squared Test revealed no significant association between the total average students' evaluation score of the course against factors such as student's level, term, main mode of instruction, course category, department, and course director's gender, academic experiences, and nationality. On the other hand, pairwise comparisons revealed that grades from A+ to C were predictors of the total average SCES scores (p ≤ 0.004). Using the Paired Samples T-Test, the student's evaluation scores for their course were found to be significantly higher for females than males (mean ± SD = 50.56 ± 24.3 vs. 41.00 ± 26.3, p = 0.042). Using Pearson correlations, results showed a significant association of total average students' course evaluation scores against factors such as average course syllabus, staff performance, course learning resources, course execution, and course quality (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Average course syllabus, staff performance, course learning resources, course execution, and course quality are major predictor variables that influence SCES scores in the examined program. Enhancing these domains will be of great importance to improve the quality of the courses at the dental bachelor level.

Creation of 21st century anatomy facilities: designing facilities for integrated preclinical education in the Middle East

BACKGROUND

The establishment of new anatomy facilities needs to accommodate a combination of modern teaching modalities that best align with evidence-based best teaching practices. This article describes the process in which our state-of-the-art anatomy laboratories were designed and implemented, and how these facilities support aspects of modern anatomy education.

METHODS

A list of best practices for anatomy education in a modern medical curriculum was summarized from the literature. To assess student satisfaction, a survey related to student perception of the anatomy facilities (5-point Likert scale) was conducted.

RESULTS

Our educational modalities include a broad range of teaching approaches. The Instructional Studio houses prosected and plastinated specimens, and cadaveric dissections are performed. Each of our three Dry Laboratories allow for active learning and interaction between small student groups. The Webinar Room acts as a conference room for departmental and online meetings, discussions with students, and dialogues with affiliated hospitals via the internet. The Imaging Center is equipped with a Sectra® medical educational platform, CAE Vimedix® Virtual Medical Imaging Ultrasound Training System, and Philipps Lumify® Ultrasound devices to train students to conduct and interpret sonographic images. Moreover, the Complete Anatomy® program is made available to all our students.

CONCLUSION

The layout of our newly created Anatomy Facilities allows for all aspects of modern medical education mentioned in the literature. These educational modalities and teaching approaches are highly appreciated by our faculty and students. Moreover, these technologies allowed for a smooth transition from on-site anatomy teaching to online education during the COVID pandemic.

Barriers to obtaining reliable results from evaluations of teaching quality in undergraduate medical education

BACKGROUND

Medical education is characterized by numerous features that are different from other higher education programmes, and evaluations of teaching quality are an integral part of medical education. Although scholars have made extensive efforts to enhance the quality of teaching, various issues unrelated to teaching that interfere with the accuracy of evaluation results remain. The purpose of this study is to identify the barriers that prevent objective and reliable results from being obtained during the evaluation process.

METHODS

This study used mixed methods (3 data sources) to collect opinions from different stakeholders. Based on purposive sampling, 16 experts familiar with teaching management and 12 s- and third-year students were invited to participate in interviews and discussions, respectively. Additionally, based on systematic random sampling, 74 teachers were invited to complete a questionnaire survey. All qualitative data were imported into NVivo software and analysed using thematic analysis in chronological order and based on grounded theory. Statistical analyses of the questionnaire results were conducted using SPSS software.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine valid questionnaires (93.24%) were recovered. A total of 29 open codes were extracted, and 14 axial codes were summarized and divided into four selective codes: evaluation preparation, the index system, the operation process, and the consequences of evaluation. The main barriers to obtaining reliable evaluation results included inadequate attention, unreasonable weighting, poor teaching facilities, an index without pertinence and appropriate descriptions, bad time-points, incomplete information on the system, lagged feedback, and disappointing result application. Almost all participants suggested lowering the weight of students as subjects, with a weight of 50-60% being appropriate. Students showed dissatisfaction with evaluation software, and the participants disagreed over the definition of good teaching and the management of student attendance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals the difficulties and problems in current evaluations of teaching in medical education. Collecting data from multiple stakeholders helps in better understanding the evaluation process. Educators need to be aware of various issues that may affect the final results when designing the evaluation system and interpreting the results. More research on solutions to these problems and the development of a reasonable evaluation system is warranted.

Student evaluations of teaching (SET): Guidelines for their use

Student evaluations of teaching (SET) provide a structured way of collecting feedback from students about the course and teacher's effectiveness. We reviewed literature describing use of SET across a broad range of disciplines in undergraduate and graduate education to provide guidelines for faculty in using SET in a nursing or other health professions program. On SET tools, students typically rate their satisfaction with a course and perceptions about the quality of the teaching. It is important to evaluate SET tools prior to their use including pilot testing tools with students because studies show students may not interpret items or questions on a SET tool as faculty intended. Common uses of the evaluation data from SET include improvement of courses and teaching, and for personnel decisions.

Smartphone-based evaluations of clinical placements-a useful complement to web-based evaluation tools

PURPOSE

Web-based questionnaires are currently the standard method for course evaluations. The high rate of smartphone adoption in Sweden makes possible a range of new uses, including course evaluation. This study examines the potential advantages and disadvantages of using a smartphone app as a complement to web-based course evaluationsystems.

METHODS

An iPhone app for course evaluations was developed and interfaced to an existing web-based tool. Evaluations submitted using the app were compared with those submitted using the web between August 2012 and June 2013, at the Faculty of Medicine at Uppsala University, Sweden.

RESULTS

At the time of the study, 49% of the students were judged to own iPhones. Over the course of the study, 3,340 evaluations were submitted, of which 22.8% were submitted using the app. The median of mean scores in the submitted evaluations was 4.50 for the app (with an interquartile range of 3.70-5.20) and 4.60 (3.70-5.20) for the web (P=0.24). The proportion of evaluations that included a free-text comment was 50.5% for the app and 49.9% for the web (P=0.80).

CONCLUSION

An app introduced as a complement to a web-based course evaluation system met with rapid adoption. We found no difference in the frequency of free-text comments or in the evaluation scores. Apps appear to be promising tools for course evaluations. web-based course evaluation system met with rapid adoption. We found no difference in the frequency of free-text comments or in the evaluation scores. Apps appear to be promising tools for course evaluations.