It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Faculty evaluation surveys in the frame of student evaluation of teaching (SETs) are a widely utilized tool to assess faculty teaching. Although SETs are used regularly to evaluate teaching effectiveness, their sole use for making administrative decisions and as an indicator of teaching quality has been controversial.
MethodsA survey containing 22 items assessing demographics, perceptions, and factors for evaluating faculty was distributed to medical students at our institute. Statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel and R Software utilizing regression analysis and ANOVA tests.
ResultsThe survey received 374 responses, consisting of 191 (51.1%) male students and 183 (48.9%) female students. In all, 178 (47.5%) students considered the optimal time for providing faculty evaluation to be after the release of the exam results, compared to 127 (33.9%) students, who chose the after the exam but before the release of exam results option. When asked what happens whenever the tutor is aware of the SETs data, 273 (72.9%) and 254 (67.9%) students believed that it would influence the difficulty of the exam and the grading/curving of the exam results, respectively. Better teaching skills (93%, 348), being responsive and open to student feedback and suggestions (84.7%, 317), being committed to class time and schedule (80.1%, 300), and an easier exam (68.6%, 257) were considered important factors to acquire a positive evaluation by a considerable proportion of students. Fewer lectures (p < 0.05), decreased number of slides per lecture (p < 0.01), easier exam (p < 0.05), and giving clues to students about the exam (p < 0.05) were found to be very important to obtain a positive tutor evaluation by students.
ConclusionsInstitutions ought to continue exploring areas for improvement in the faculty evaluation process while raising awareness among students about the importance and administrative implications of their feedback.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
3 Department of Medical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India