See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230349622

Medical Students’ perceptions of teaching evaluations

Article  in  The Clinical Teacher · May 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-498X.2009.00268.x

CITATIONS READS

6 22

2 authors, including:

Mobeen Iqbal
Shifa International Hospitals Ltd.
49 PUBLICATIONS   832 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

professional identity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mobeen Iqbal on 21 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluation
Medical students’
perceptions of teaching
evaluations
Mobeen Iqbal and Bushra Khizar, Shifa College of Medicine, Islamabad, Pakistan
INTRODUCTION
S
tudents in medical schools
are routinely asked to eval-
uate teaching, including
faculty members. Student evalua-
tions are an important component
of documenting the teaching–
learning cycle, and are intended
to improve curricular design,
delivery and resource allocation,
and to inform the promotion pro-
cess and program evaluation.1–3
Previous studies have addressed
the reliability and validity of these
evaluations,4,5 and they are now
considered as one of the main
tools for assessing teaching effec-
tiveness.2,6,7 However, the utility
of these evaluations may be
unknown to students.
Although student feedback
is generally considered to be
valuable, no data addressing stu-
dents’ perceptions about teaching
evaluations are available from
Pakistan. Students in developing
countries such as Pakistan tend to
be submissive, and remain una-
ware of their rights as stakehold-
ers in the education process.
Because of the prevailing educa-
tional philosophy in the country,
students are passive, and are not
in the habit of commenting
openly about perceived flaws in
the education system. Private
institutions are now striving for
quality assurance and evidence-
guided medical education, and
student feedback is increasingly
being considered for achieving
these goals. Moreover, several
institutions have incorporated
such feedback as one of the
components of promotion policy
for the faculty members.
 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2009; 6: 69–72 69
Shifa College has an anony- Student
mous evaluation process where evaluations are
the identity of the evaluator is an important
not disclosed to the faculty
component of
members. Students are given tea-
cher-rating forms at the end of documenting
each term. These forms require the teaching–
students to rate several attri- learning cycle
butes. We designed this study to
investigate what students know
and believe about the teaching
evaluation process, with the
intention of uncovering their
misconceptions about the utility
of teaching evaluations for both
the teaching staff and the
administration. Moreover, we in-
tend to utilise the results to
improve the evaluation system in
a proposed new curriculum that
will be integrated, modular and
more student-centered (compared
with the current traditional, sub-
ject-based curriculum).
 Students do an METHODS
effective job of
distinguishing We designed a study to survey
students’ perceptions of teaching
among teachers evaluations. The survey instru-
ment included statements target-
ing students’ perceptions around
the following themes: the utility
of the evaluations for both the
teaching staff and the adminis-
tration; the criteria they think are
valid for assessing teaching abil-
ities; and their awareness about
teaching evaluations and the
feedback process.

The instrument included 26

items (some with sub-items) to be
rated on a 5-point Likert scale
(from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly
disagree’). One statement was
related to an overall grading of
faculty members (‘fair’, ‘good’ and
‘excellent’). The statements were
randomly distributed in the sur-
vey. It was piloted on 10 stu-
dents, and statements were
modified or removed for redun-
dancy.

The survey was distributed to

third, fourth and final-year stu-
dents in the middle of the aca-
demic session in 2006, during
their second term. Students were
asked to complete the survey
anonymously. No time limit was
set for returning the survey. Con-
sent was assumed when the survey
was returned.
Answers were entered into an
Excel spreadsheet, and scores
were recorded as means and
standard deviations. Cronbach’s
alpha reliability analysis was per-
formed using SPSS v15. Responses
were conflated into two groups:
positive (agree or strongly agree)
and negative (disagree or strongly
disagree).
RESULTS
A total of 98 students returned
the survey from three clinical
years: 33 (out of 63) students
from third year, 38 (out of 52)
students from fourth year and 27
(out of 42) students from the final
year.
The reliability analysis re-
vealed an overall Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.73. Table 1 shows the
results of the survey. The scores
in each of the themes are listed
along with responses. Students
disagreed that teachers use their
evaluations to improve the course
(45%), to revise assessment
methods (50%), and to promote
learner-centered teaching (51%).
A total of 55 per cent of the
students disagreed that the
administration uses evaluations
for the hiring or firing of teaching
staff. However, students were
aware of the importance of their
teaching evaluations (70%), but
tended to disagree that personal
regard (76%) or the personality of
the teacher (55%) has a major
effect on their evaluations. Most
(70%) agreed that senior, tenured
professors are set in their ways,
and that evaluating them may not
be helpful. Students think that
valid criteria for evaluating a
teacher’s teaching ability include
being a content expert (79%),
promoting critical thinking
(78%), and providing encourage-
ment and motivation (94%). The
use of audiovisual aids was also
seen as a valid evaluation crite-
rion by 58 per cent of the
students.
DISCUSSION
In terms of awareness, the stu-
dents in our study knew that one

70  Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2009; 6: 69–72

 Table 1. Results from four themes addressed in the survey Students think
that valid
n (%) of n (%) of
‘strongly ‘strongly criteria for
agree’ and disagree’ and evaluating a
‘agree’ ‘disagree’ teacher’s
Major themes addressed in the survey Mean ± SD responses responses
teaching ability
How do students think faculty members use teaching evaluations? includes being a
1 To improve the course 2.64 ± 1.1 19 (19) 44 (45) content expert
2 To revise assessment and evaluation methods 2.58 ± 1.2 27 (28) 49 (50)
3 To promote learner-centered teaching (making presentations 2.51 ± 1.2 25 (26) 50 (51)
more relevant, interesting, challenging and fun)
4 To improve teaching methodology 2.58 ± 1.2 27 (28) 49 (50)
5 Teaching staff do not care about their evaluations 3.95 ± 1.0 69 (70) 12 (12)
6 Teaching staff should receive instruction in ‘effective teaching’ 4.0 ± 1.0 84 (86) 10 (10)
How do students think the administration use teaching evaluations?
1 To hire ⁄ fire teaching staff 2.83 ± 1.3 35 (36) 54 (55)
2 To decide on promotions ⁄ salary 2.72 ± 0.97 23 (23) 39 (40)
3 Evaluations are only forwarded to teaching staff if they are good 3.12 ± 1.2 35 (36) 25 (26)
How aware are students about the teaching evaluation process?
1 Evaluation is a useful thing to do 3.85 ± 1.2 69 (70) 18 (18)
2 Students take evaluation seriously 3.9 ± 1.1 71 (72) 17 (17)
3 Feedback is an important part of the teaching process 3.75 ± 1.0 72 (73) 17 (17)
4 Students are satisfied with the opportunity to evaluate teaching staff 3.37 ± 1.3 62 (63) 25 (26)
5 Enthusiastic, humorous and friendly teachers get better ratings 3.62 ± 1.1 69 (70) 24 (24)
6 Personal regard affects student ratings 2.05 ± 1.2 17 (17) 74 (76)
7 Personality and attractiveness effects student ratings 2.64 ± 1.8 30 (31) 54 (55)
8 Evaluation should be confidential 4.38 ± 1.0 84 (86) 06 (06)
9 Student performance is linked with 3.55 ± 1.4 63 (64) 26 (27)
the teaching ability of faculty members
10 Evaluations should be given mid-term rather than at the end 3.07 ± 1.1 40 (41) 32 (33)
11 The evaluation process should be improved 4.19 ± 0.9 77 (79) 05 (05)
12 Senior, tenured professors are set in their 3.69 ± 1.2 69 (70) 19 (19)
ways, so evaluating them is useless

What criteria do students think are valid for evaluating a teacher’s teaching ability?
1 Should be a content expert 3.88 ± 1.0 77 (79) 15 (15)
2 Should be able to hold student attention 4.43 ± 0.7 92 (94) 01 (01)
3 Promotes critical thinking 4.02 ± 1.0 76 (78) 14 (14)
4 A better use of audio-visuals 3.52 ± 1.1 57 (58) 22 (22)
5 Well-organised, clear and thorough 4.41 ± 0.7 94 (96) 04 (04)
6 Encourages and motivates students 4.48 ± 0.7 92 (94) 03 (03)
7 Demonstrates an enjoyment of the subject matter 4.23 ± 0.8 83 (85) 04 (04)

Scoring: 1, strongly disagree; 3, uncertain; 5, strongly agree.

purpose of the teaching evalua- the course, but they strongly were uncertain as to whether such
tion process was to promote believed that this was not hap- evaluations were used in deter-
improvements in teaching or in pening in reality. However, they mining pay raises or promotions.

 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2009; 6: 69–72 71

 When Despite the students’ percep-
incorporated tion that teaching staff do not
take their evaluations seriously,
into a thorough they believe that evaluations are
analysis, important and useful, and address
student them sincerely. This suggests that
evaluation data teaching evaluations are generally
are useful valid and are unaffected by po-
tential biases, in contrast to the
negative views frequently held by
faculty members. This will im-
prove further if students know
that their ratings will have a
tangible effect. An interesting
negative perception was that the
administration only forwarded
favourable evaluations to teach-
ers. This perception seems to stem
from the apparent lack of impact
of the assessments on the teach-
ing staff’s attitudes towards
teaching. Formal feedback ses-
sions addressing students’ con-
cerns, and incorporating their
suggestions in improving curricu-
lar delivery, would help reduce
cynicism, and would improve the
lines of communication between
students and senior faculty
members.
As initially stated, the uses
made of faculty teaching evalua-
tions are often unknown to the
student, who may consequently
view the process as a futile
exercise. This may threaten the
validity of their evaluations. The
goals of evaluation should be
well defined and clearly commu-
nicated to students,3 which will
give them a sense of empower-
ment. Moreover, the responses
also reveal that if given the
opportunity, students, as impor-
tant stakeholders, are mature
enough to give valuable
opinions about the educational
process.
The present study also dispels
the notion that student evalua-
tions are based on superficial
criteria like appearance and
popularity. The majority of
students disagreed that personal
regard or the personality of a
teacher had any effect on their
evaluations. Students do an
72  Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2009; 6: 69–72
View publication stats
effective job of distinguishing
among teachers on the basis of
how much they have learned, and
hence support the validity of
their evaluations.8
An interesting observation
was the perception that a major-
ity (79%) of the students had
about content expertise being a
valid criterion for a teacher’s
teaching ability. This seems to
conflict with the assumption that
teachers do not necessarily need
content knowledge, as long as
they are skilled in the teaching
process. Schmidt et al. showed
that in problem-based learning
students guided by content ex-
perts achieved better results and
spent more time in self-directed
learning.9 This reinforces the
point that the teaching process
and content expertise are closely
linked for effective teaching.
An examination of students’
perceptions of the evaluation
process is important. For institu-
tions where evaluation data are
used in promotion and tenure
decisions, teaching evaluations
completed by students do count,
and students should be made
aware of this. Both administrators
and teaching staff should feel
secure that to some extent ratings
reflect an instructor’s impact on
students. When incorporated into
a thorough analysis, student
evaluation data are useful, not
only because they represent the
learner’s perspective, but also
because they can help, along with
peer data, in decision-making
related to promotions and merit
increases.
Based on the results of the
survey, teaching evaluations at
our institution are being reviewed
and redesigned, with a view to
enhancing the response rate, with
a regular review of evaluations at
faculty forums, to improve the
teaching–learning cycle.
In conclusion, this study
provides insight into students’
perceptions about faculty evalua-
tions in our institution. It also
highlights that some of the per-
ceptions arose from the lack of
overt action in response to their
suggestions. These perceptions
can be utilised in designing
courses, improving instruction
and for administrative use. We
believe that these types of data
should be frequently collected to
bridge the gap between students,
teaching staff and the adminis-
tration.
REFERENCES
1. Irby DM. Evaluating teaching skills.
Diabetes Educ 1986;11:37–46.
2. Seldin P. The use and abuse of
student ratings of professors. The
Chronicle of Higher Education,
1993;Vol 39, pg 40. July 21.
3. Snell L, Tallett S, Haist S, Hays R,
Norcini J, Prince K, Rothman A, Rowe
R. A review of the evaluation of
clinical teaching: new perspectives
and challenges. Med Educ
2000;34:862–870.
4. Costin F, Greenough WT, Menges RJ.
Student ratings of college teaching:
Reliability, validity, and usefulness.
Review of Educational Research,
1971;41:511–536.
5. Marsh HW. Students’ evaluations of
university teaching: Dimensionality,
reliability, validity, potential biases,
and utility. Journal of Educational
Psychology 1984;76(5):707–754.
6. Feldman DA. Consistency and
variability among college students
in rating their teachers and courses:
a review and analysis. Research
in Higher Education 1977;6:
223–274.
7. Feldman KA. Course characteristics
and college students’ rating of their
teachers: what we know and what we
don’t. Research in Higher Education
1978;9:199–242.
8. Marsh HW, Overall JU. Long-term
stability of student’s evaluations: a
note of Feldman’s ‘‘consistency and
variability among college students in
rating their teachers and courses.’’
Research in Higher Education
1979;10:139–147.
9. Schmidt HG, van der Arend A, Moust
JH, Kokx I, Boon L. Influence of
tutor’s subject-matter expertise on
student effort and achievement in
problem-based learning. Acad Med.
1993;68(10):784–791.