Evaluation of faculty: Are medical students and faculty on the same page?

Elhadi Aburawi, Michelle McLean, Sami Shaban

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Student evaluation of individual teachers is important in the quality improvement cycle. The aim of this study was to explore medical student and faculty perceptions of teacher evaluation in the light of dwindling participation in online evaluations. Methods: This study was conducted at the United Arab Emirates University College of Medicine & Health Sciences between September 2010 and June 2011. A 21-item questionnaire was used to investigate learner and faculty perceptions of teacher evaluation in terms of purpose, etiquette, confidentiality and outcome on a five-point Likert scale. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 54% of faculty and 23% of students. Faculty and students generally concurred that teachers should be evaluated by students but believed that the purpose of the evaluation should be explained. Despite acknowledging the confidentiality of online evaluation, faculty members were less sure that they would not recognise individual comments. While students perceived that the culture allowed objective evaluation, faculty members were less convinced. Although teachers claimed to take evaluation seriously, with Medical Sciences faculty members in particular indicating that they changed their teaching as a result of feedback, students were unsure whether teachers responded to feedback. Conclusion: Despite agreement on the value of evaluation, differences between faculty and student perceptions emerged in terms of confidentiality and whether evaluation led to improved practice. Educating both teachers and learners regarding the purpose of evaluation as a transparent process for quality improvement is imperative.

Original languageEnglish
JournalSultan Qaboos University Medical Journal
Volume14
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Medical Faculties
Medical Students
Students
Confidentiality
Quality Improvement
United Arab Emirates
Teaching
Medicine

Cite this

@article{60cafb51a446416a800a91b1fb0fea70,
title = "Evaluation of faculty: Are medical students and faculty on the same page?",
abstract = "Objectives: Student evaluation of individual teachers is important in the quality improvement cycle. The aim of this study was to explore medical student and faculty perceptions of teacher evaluation in the light of dwindling participation in online evaluations. Methods: This study was conducted at the United Arab Emirates University College of Medicine & Health Sciences between September 2010 and June 2011. A 21-item questionnaire was used to investigate learner and faculty perceptions of teacher evaluation in terms of purpose, etiquette, confidentiality and outcome on a five-point Likert scale. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 54{\%} of faculty and 23{\%} of students. Faculty and students generally concurred that teachers should be evaluated by students but believed that the purpose of the evaluation should be explained. Despite acknowledging the confidentiality of online evaluation, faculty members were less sure that they would not recognise individual comments. While students perceived that the culture allowed objective evaluation, faculty members were less convinced. Although teachers claimed to take evaluation seriously, with Medical Sciences faculty members in particular indicating that they changed their teaching as a result of feedback, students were unsure whether teachers responded to feedback. Conclusion: Despite agreement on the value of evaluation, differences between faculty and student perceptions emerged in terms of confidentiality and whether evaluation led to improved practice. Educating both teachers and learners regarding the purpose of evaluation as a transparent process for quality improvement is imperative.",
author = "Elhadi Aburawi and Michelle McLean and Sami Shaban",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal",
issn = "2075-051X",
publisher = "Sultan Qaboos University",
number = "3",

}

Evaluation of faculty : Are medical students and faculty on the same page? / Aburawi, Elhadi; McLean, Michelle; Shaban, Sami.

In: Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of faculty

T2 - Are medical students and faculty on the same page?

AU - Aburawi, Elhadi

AU - McLean, Michelle

AU - Shaban, Sami

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Objectives: Student evaluation of individual teachers is important in the quality improvement cycle. The aim of this study was to explore medical student and faculty perceptions of teacher evaluation in the light of dwindling participation in online evaluations. Methods: This study was conducted at the United Arab Emirates University College of Medicine & Health Sciences between September 2010 and June 2011. A 21-item questionnaire was used to investigate learner and faculty perceptions of teacher evaluation in terms of purpose, etiquette, confidentiality and outcome on a five-point Likert scale. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 54% of faculty and 23% of students. Faculty and students generally concurred that teachers should be evaluated by students but believed that the purpose of the evaluation should be explained. Despite acknowledging the confidentiality of online evaluation, faculty members were less sure that they would not recognise individual comments. While students perceived that the culture allowed objective evaluation, faculty members were less convinced. Although teachers claimed to take evaluation seriously, with Medical Sciences faculty members in particular indicating that they changed their teaching as a result of feedback, students were unsure whether teachers responded to feedback. Conclusion: Despite agreement on the value of evaluation, differences between faculty and student perceptions emerged in terms of confidentiality and whether evaluation led to improved practice. Educating both teachers and learners regarding the purpose of evaluation as a transparent process for quality improvement is imperative.

AB - Objectives: Student evaluation of individual teachers is important in the quality improvement cycle. The aim of this study was to explore medical student and faculty perceptions of teacher evaluation in the light of dwindling participation in online evaluations. Methods: This study was conducted at the United Arab Emirates University College of Medicine & Health Sciences between September 2010 and June 2011. A 21-item questionnaire was used to investigate learner and faculty perceptions of teacher evaluation in terms of purpose, etiquette, confidentiality and outcome on a five-point Likert scale. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 54% of faculty and 23% of students. Faculty and students generally concurred that teachers should be evaluated by students but believed that the purpose of the evaluation should be explained. Despite acknowledging the confidentiality of online evaluation, faculty members were less sure that they would not recognise individual comments. While students perceived that the culture allowed objective evaluation, faculty members were less convinced. Although teachers claimed to take evaluation seriously, with Medical Sciences faculty members in particular indicating that they changed their teaching as a result of feedback, students were unsure whether teachers responded to feedback. Conclusion: Despite agreement on the value of evaluation, differences between faculty and student perceptions emerged in terms of confidentiality and whether evaluation led to improved practice. Educating both teachers and learners regarding the purpose of evaluation as a transparent process for quality improvement is imperative.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904674377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 14

JO - Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal

JF - Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal

SN - 2075-051X

IS - 3

ER -