Teachers Evaluation Methods in Medical Education: Round Views of Faculty Members and Educational Experts

Peivand Bastani, Soudabeh Vatankhah, Ali TaherNejad, Afsaneh Ghasemi

Background: Since there is no agreement on the best approach of teachers’ evaluation, this study was conducted to determine medical teachers’ evaluation methods and clarify the viewpoints of Iranian faculty members toward them. Materials and Methods: A mix method study was conducted in two phases, systematic review and survey, in Tehran University of Medical Sciences on 400 faculty members. In phase one, 24 studies were analyzed among 1520 and based on that, the viewpoints of faculty members about 14 methods were assessed through a validated questionnaire. Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA were used for data analysis. Results: The participants’ age mean was 48.62+5.23 and most of them were assistant professors (121/36.01%). About 280 participants (83.3%) chose “mixed method rating” as the best way of evaluation; 68.7% of the participants though “student rating” cannot be an appropriate indicative for evaluating teachers’ performance. The findings indicated statistical relationships between the average of some evaluation methods (student rating, peer evaluation, self-ratings, teaching scholarship, teaching awards) and the faculty members’ gender (P<0.05). There was also a significant relationship in average of student rating, peer evaluation, mentor’s advice and self-ratings with participants’ age (P<0.05). Conclusion: None of the evaluation methods can be sufficient to show a correct status of teachers’ performance. It is obvious that mix method evaluation as a combination of different measures and methods can be considered as a comprehensive approach; it is recommended to be applied in this university, and then compare teachers’ satisfaction and performance before and after this transition. [GMJ.2017;6(3):233-239] DOI:10.22086/gmj.v0i0.725

Evaluation; Medical Education; Higher Education; Performance

- Dush SK, Patro S, Behera BK. Teaching Methods and Its Efficacy an Evaluation by the Students. J of Indian Acad of Forensic Med. 2013; 35(4):321-4.

- Bland CJ, Wersal L, VanLoy W, Jacott W. Evaluating faculty performance: A systematically designed and assessed approach. Acad Med. 2002; 77(1):15-30.

- Bastani P, Amini M, TaherNejad K, Shaarbafchizadeh N. Faculty members’ viewpoints about the present and the ideal teacher evaluation system in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2013;1(4):140-7.

- Safavi SA, Kamariah AB. The Utility of Student Evaluations for Medical Sciences Teachers and Administrators. Int J of Bus, Soc and Sci Res. 2013; 4(13):266-72.

- Bastani P, Amini M, TaherNejad A, Rouhollahi N. The Tehran University of Medical Sciences Faculty Members’ Viewpoints about the Teachers’ Evaluation System: A Qualitative Study. J of Torbat Heiydariyeh University of Med Sci. 2014; 2 (1):7-16. [Persian]

- Azizi K, Aghsmolaei T, Parsa N, Dabbaghmanesh T. Comparison of differences in performance evaluation of faculty by students with faculty’s self-assessment. Med Educ Prof. 2014; 2(3): 108-13.

- Bastani P, Rouhollahi N, Tahernejad A. Validity and Reliability of Teachers` Evaluation Questionnaires from Students Point of View in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Biannual Medical Education. J of Babol University of Med Sci. 2014;3(1):7-14. [Persian]

- Siddiqui ZS, Jonas-Dwyer D, Carr SE. Twelve tips for peer observation of teaching. Medical Teacher. 2007; 29:297-300.

- Hammersley-Fletcher L, Orsmond P. Evaluating our peers: is peer observation a meaningful process?. Stud in High Educ. 2004; 29:489–503.

- Adshead L, White P, Stephenson A. Introducing peer observation of teaching to GP teachers: a questionnaire study. Med Teach. 2006; 28(2):68-73.

- Belcher R, Jones A, Smith LJ, Vincent T, Naidu SB, Montgomery J, et al. Qualitative study of the impact of an authentic electronic portfolio in undergraduate medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2014, 14:265-72.

- Berk RA. Using the 360° multisource feedback model to evaluate teaching and professionalism. Med Teach. 2009; 31: 1073–80.

- Berk RA. Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. Int J of Teach and Learn in Higher Educ. 2005; 17(1):48-62.

- Wen Sh H, Xu JS, Carline JD, Zhong F, Zhong YJ, Shen Sh J. Effects of a teaching evaluation system: a case study. Int J of Med Educ. 2011; 2:18-23.

- Schiekirka S, Reinhardt D, Heim S, Fabry G, Pukrop T, Anders S, et al. Student perceptions of evaluation in undergraduate medical education: A qualitative study from one medical school. Med Educ. 2012, 12:45-52.

- Aburawi E, McLean M, Shaban S. Evaluation of Faculty. Are medical students and faculty on the same page? Sultan Qaboos Univ of Med J. 2014, 14(3): 361-68.

- Gimbel RW, Cruess DF, Schor K, Hooper TI, Barbour GL. Faculty performance evaluation in accredited U.S public health graduate schools and programs: a national study. Int J of Med Educ. 2011; 2:18-23.

- Afonso NM, Cardozo LJ, Mascarenhas OAJ, Aranha ANF, Shah Ch. Are Anonymous Evaluations a Better Assessment of Faculty Teaching Performance? A Comparative Analysis of Open and Anonymous Evaluation Processes. Fam Med. 2005;37(1):43-7.

- Roos M, Kadmon M, Kirschfink M, Koch E, Jnger J, Strittmatter-Haubold V, et al. Developing medical educators _ a mixed method evaluation of a teaching education program. Med Educ online. 2014; 19: e23868.


  • There are currently no refbacks.