Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Department of Community Medicine, JN Medical College, Sawangi (M), Wardha, Maharashtra, India
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Student evaluation of teaching (SET) is considered to be one of the most important
as well as inexpensive resources for sustaining professional development in medical teaching. The aim
of this project was to improve the quality of education in our medical college by using student feedback
as a tool for faculty development. However, it is also important to obtain teachers’ perceptions on SET.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an educational research study conducted on a single
practical/tutorial batch of fourth‑semester students in pathology chosen by random selection.
Feedback regarding teaching was collected for all the teachers in the department of pathology
where the students had to rate the teachers on a scale of 1–5. Teachers’ perceptions on students’
feedback were gathered with the help of another structured prevalidated questionnaire containing
15 questions/items. The feedback data were obtained using a 5‑point Likert scale. The scores
obtained from the students’ evaluation data and the teachers’ perception data on the different items
were analyzed using SPSS software version 20.0.
RESULTS: Significant findings from students’ feedback were that 80% of teachers had a median
score of >4 in explicit curriculum, indicating that most of the students agreed that the teachers teach
their core subject well. However, only 20% of teachers had a median score >4 in implicit curriculum.
Teachers, in their feedback, fully agreed that students should be involved in the evaluation of teachers
and that student feedback ensures the overall faculty development in the institute and can be used
as a tool for quality assurance in medical education.
CONCLUSION: Students’ feedback is one of the best methods of evaluation of teachers to ensure
the overall faculty development and quality assurance in medical education. Thus, a regular feedback
mechanism should be in place for the entire institution.
Keywords
in teachers’ evaluation system. Int J Appl Basic Med Res
2016;6:178‑81.
2. Joshi MA. Quality assurance in medical education. Indian J
Pharmacol 2012;44:285‑7.
3. Karle H. Global standards and accreditation in medical education:
A view from the WFME supplement on the occasion of the
ECFMG 50th Anniversary Invitational Conference Impact of
International Medical Graduates on US and Global Health Care.
Acad Med 2006;81 Suppl 12:43‑8.
4. MCI Vision 2015; 2011. Available from: http://www.mciindia.
org/tools/announcement/MCI_booklet.pdf. [Last accessed on
2011 Dec 21].
5. The Role of Students in the Accreditation of Medical Education
Programs in the U.S. and Canada July 2010 (For Schools with
Full Accreditation Surveys in 2011‑2012) Liaison Committee on
Medical Education Committee on the Accreditation of Canadian
Medical Schools. Available from: http://www.lcme.org/
roleofstudents1112.pdf. [Last accessed on 2011 Dec 21].
6. Savage C, Uhre S, Kovać K, Wennekes V, Jensen‑Dahm C.
Quality Assurance in Medical Schools, Moving from Quality
Assurance to Quality Improvement Quality Assurance Workshop
EMSA/IFMSA. Version 4.3. Copenhagen, Denmark; 6‑10 July,
2005. Available from: http://wiki.ifmsa.org scome/index.
php?title=Quality_Assurance_in_Medical_Schools.[Last accessed
on 2011 Dec 21].
7. Nasser F, Fresko B. Faculty views of student evaluation of college
teaching. Assess Eval High Educ 2002;27:187‑98.
8. Beran TN, Rokosh JL. The consequential validity of student
ratings: What do instructors really think? Alberta J Educ Res
2009;55:497‑511.
9. Lata H, Walia L, Gupta V. Student feedback on teaching and
evaluation methodology in physiology. Southeast Asian J Med
Educ 2008;2:31‑7.
10. Richardson BK. Feedback. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:e1‑5.
11. Biggs J. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 2nd ed.
Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press; 2003.
12. Cohen P, McKeachie W. The role of colleagues in the evaluation
of teaching. Improv Coll Univ Teach 1980;28:147‑54.
13. Cashin W. Student Ratings of Teaching: A Summary of the
Research. Idea Paper No. 20. Manhattan: Kansas State University,
Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Division of
Continuing Education; 1988.
14. McKeachie W, Kaplan M. Persistent problems in evaluating
college teaching. AAHE Bull 1996;8:5‑8. Available from: http://
cedar.olemiss.edu/depts/vc_academic_affairs/problems.html.
[Last retrieved on 2004 Nov 19].
)