medigraphic.com

2004, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2004; 42 (5)

Student Questionnaire to Evaluate Basic Medical Science Teaching (METEQ-B)

Valle R, Alaminos I, Contreras E, Salas LE, Tomasini P, Varela M

Language: English
References: 39
Page: 405-411
PDF size: 155.27 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objectives: our aims were to design a student questionnaire to evaluate professorial teaching abilities based on a definition of quality teaching of basic medical sciences and to identify its underlying dimensions to perform an evaluation of the teaching of basic medical sciences at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) School of Medicine as part of this institution’s Teaching Evaluation Project.
Subjects: a total of 6598 questionnaires were answered by 6239 students who evaluated 327 teachers.
Material and methods: the questionnaire was applied during the normal-class schedule during the 1995-1996 academic year. Professors under evaluation were not present at the time evaluation took place.
Results: three factors were defined that according to their content were denominated as teaching strategies, learning evaluation, ethics, and responsibility.
Conclusions: certain similarities were found between content of items included in this questionnaire and those used in other studies; however, the questionnaire also comprised the skills and abilities that a teacher should instill in their students to achieve? the graduate proestablished by the current curriculum of the UNAM School of Medicine.


REFERENCES

  1. Goldschmid ML. The evaluation and improve-ment of teaching in higher education. Higher Educ1978;7:221-245.

  2. Murray HG. The impact of formative and summativeevaluation of teaching in North American universities.Assess Eval Higher Educ 1984;9:117-132.

  3. Miller AH. Student assessments of teaching inhigher education. Higher Educ 1998;17:3-15.

  4. McKeachie WJ. Research on college teaching: the his-torical background. J Educ Psychol 1990;82:189-200.

  5. Cashin WE, Downey RG. Using global studentrating items for summative evaluation. J Educ Psychol1992;84:563-572.

  6. D™Apollonia S, Abrami PC. Navigating student ratingsof instruction. Am Psychologist 1997;52:1198-1208.

  7. McKeachie WJ. Student ratings. The validity of use.Am Psychologist 1997;52:1218-1225.

  8. Dohner CH. Faculty evaluation. En: Memorias dela XI Conferencia Panamericana, Federación Pana-mericana de Asociaciones de Facultades de Medicina,México; 1987. p. 237-247. 9. Rettie CS. Faculty evaluation. The relationshipbetween attitudes and behavior. En: Memorias de laXI Conferencia Panamericana, Federación Paname-ricana de Asociaciones de Facultades de Medicina,México; 1987. p. 260-264.

  9. Marsh HW. Still weighting for right criteria tovalidate student evaluations of teaching in the IDEASystem. J Educ Psychol 1995;87:666-679.

  10. Centra JA. Formative and summative evaluation:parody or paradox. En: Aleamoni LM, editor.Techniques for evaluating and improving instructions.New directions for teaching and learning 31. SanFrancisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass; 1987.

  11. Bing-You RG. Differences in teaching skills andattitudes among residents after their formal instruc-tion skills. Acad Med 1990;65:483-484.

  12. Irby DM. Clinical teacher effectiveness in medicine.J Med Educ 1978;53:808-815.

  13. Marsh HW, Roche LA. Making studentsevaluations of teaching effectiveness effective. AmPsychologist 1997;52:1187-1197.

  14. Feldman KA. Instructional effectiveness of collegeteachers as judged by teachers themselves, currentand former students, colleagues, administrators andexternal (neutral) observers. Res Higher Educ1989;30:113-135.

  15. Marsh HW, Bailey M. Multidimensional students™evaluations of teaching effectiveness: a profile analysisJ Higher Educ 1993;64:1-18.

  16. McKeachie WJ. Can evaluating instruction improveteaching? New Direct Teach Learn 1987;31:3-7.

  17. Aleamoni LM, Yimer M. An investigation of therelationship between colleague rating, studentrating, research productivity and academic rank inrating instructional effectiveness. J Educ Psychol1973;64:274-277.

  18. Centra JA. Determining faculty effectiveness: assessingteaching, research and service for personnel decisionsand improvements. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass; 1979.

  19. Irby DM. Evaluating instruction in medical education.J Med Educ 1983;58:844-849.

  20. Cruse BD. Students™ evaluation and the universitycaveat professor. Higher Educ 1987;16:723.

  21. Fernández J, Mateo M. Student evaluation ofuniversity teaching quality: analysis of a questionnairefor a sample of university students in Spain. EducPsychol Measure 1992;53:675-686.

  22. Metcalfe DH, Matharu M. Students perceptionof good and bad teaching: report of a criticalincident study. Med Educ 1995;29:193-217.

  23. Kirschling HM, Fields J, Imle M, Mowery M,Tanner C, Perrin N, Stewart B. Evaluating teachingeffectiveness. J Nurs Educ 1995;34:401-410.

  24. Abrami PC. How should we use student ratings toevaluate teaching? Res Higher Educ 1989;30:221.

  25. Abrami PC, D™Apollonia S, Cohen P. Validity ofstudent ratings of instruction: what we know andwhat we do not. J Educ Psychol 1990;82:219-231.

  26. World Summit on Medical Education. Proceedings.Edinburgh, UK, 8-12 August 1993. Med Educ1994;28(Suppl 1):1-171.

  27. García-Barbero M. Medical education in the light ofthe World Health Organization. Health for all strategyand the European Union. Med Educ 1995;29:3-12.

  28. Carvalho CR. The pedagogic training of graduatestudents at the School of Medicine of Ribeirao. RevPaul Med 1992;110:91-96.

  29. Finucanes L, Allery A, Haynes TM. Attitudes toteaching among teachers at a British medical school.Med Educ 1994;28:213-219.

  30. De la Fuente JR, Piña Garza, E, Gutiérrez Ávila J.La formación del médico del Siglo XXI y el PlanÚnico de Estudios de la Facultad de Medicina de laUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México. EducMed Salud 1994;28:331-340.

  31. Cohen PA. Student™s ratings of instruction andstudent achievement: a meta-analysis of multisectionvalidity studies. Rev Educ Res 1981;51:281-2309.

  32. McCallum LW. A meta-analysis of course evaluationdata and its use in the tenure decision. Res HigherEduc 1984;21:150-158.

  33. Marsh HW. Students™ evaluation of university teach-ing: research findings, methodological issues, anddirections for further research. J Educ Res 1987;11:253-388.

  34. Koon J, Murray HG. Using multiple outcomes tovalidate student ratings of overall teacher effectiveness.J Higher Educ 1990;66:61-81.

  35. Greenwald AG. Validity concerns and usefulnessof student ratings of instruction. Am Psychologist1997;52:1182-1186.

  36. Greenwald AG, Gillmore GM. Gradient leniencyis a removable contaminant of student ratings ofinstruction. Am Psychologist 1997;52:1209-1217.

  37. Facultad de Medicina. Plan Único de Estudios de laCarrera de Médico Cirujano. Estructura del PlanÚnico de Estudios. Rev Facultad Med 1993;36:11-16.

  38. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariatestatistics. 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA, USA: Allynand Bacon; 2001.

  39. Abrami PC, D™Apollonia S. Multidimensionalstudents™ evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Gener-alizability of N=1 research. Comment on Marsh(1991). J Educ Psychol 1991;30:221-227.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com