Student perceptions of evaluation in undergraduate medical education: A qualitative study from one medical school

BMC Medical Education

Tobias Raupach⁴  Sven Anders³  Tobias Pukrop²  Götz Fabry¹  Susanne Heim⁵  Deborah Reinhardt⁴  Sarah Schiekirka⁴ 

[1]Department of Medical Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

[2]Department of Haematology and Oncology, University Hospital Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

[3]Department of Legal Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

[4]Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, University Hospital Göttingen, D-37099, Göttingen, Germany

[5]Department of Medical Psychology and Sociology, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

关键词: Learning outcome;    Consequence;    Purpose;    Evaluation;    Undergraduate medical education;   

Others  :  1153643
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-12-45

 received in 2012-01-20, accepted in 2012-06-22,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Evaluation is an integral part of medical education. Despite a wide use of various evaluation tools, little is known about student perceptions regarding the purpose and desired consequences of evaluation. Such knowledge is important to facilitate interpretation of evaluation results. The aims of this study were to elicit student views on the purpose of evaluation, indicators of teaching quality, evaluation tools and possible consequences drawn from evaluation data.

Methods

This qualitative study involved 17 undergraduate medical students in Years 3 and 4 participating in 3 focus group interviews. Content analysis was conducted by two different researchers.

Results

Evaluation was viewed as a means to facilitate improvements within medical education. Teaching quality was believed to be dependent on content, process, teacher and student characteristics as well as learning outcome, with an emphasis on the latter. Students preferred online evaluations over paper-and-pencil forms and suggested circulating results among all faculty and students. Students strongly favoured the allocation of rewards and incentives for good teaching to individual teachers.

Conclusions

In addition to assessing structural aspects of teaching, evaluation tools need to adequately address learning outcome. The use of reliable and valid evaluation methods is a prerequisite for resource allocation to individual teachers based on evaluation results.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Schiekirka et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McOwen KS, Bellini LM, Morrison G, Shea JA: The Development and Implementation of a Health-System-Wide Evaluation System for Education Activities: Build It and They Will Come. Acad Med 2009, 84:1352-1359. 1310.1097/ACM.1350b1013e3181b1356c1996
• [2]Herzig S, Marschall B, Nast-Kolb D, Soboll S, Rump LC, Hilgers RD: Positionspapier der nordrhein-westfälischen Studiendekane zur hochschulvergleichenden leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe für die Lehre. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2007, 24: . Doc109
• [3]McKeachie W: Student ratings; the validity of use. Am Psychol 1997, 52:1218-1225.
• [4]Raupach T, Schiekirka S, Münscher C, Beißbarth T, Himmel W, Burckhardt G, Pukrop T: Piloting an outcome-based programme evaluation tool in undergraduate medical education. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2012, 29: . Doc44
• [5]Braun E, Leidner B: Academic course evaluation: Theoretical and empirical distinctions between self-rated gain in competences and satisfaction with teaching behavior. Eur Psychol 2009, 14:297-306.
• [6]Cantillon P: GUEST EDITORIAL: Evaluation: beyond the rhetoric. J Eval Clin Pract 1999, 5:265-268.
• [7]Prave RS, Baril GL: Instructor ratings: Controlling for bias from Initial student interest. J Educ Bus 1993, 68:362-366.
• [8]Griffin BW: Instructor Reputation and Student Ratings of Instruction. Contemp Educ Psychol 2001, 26:534-552.
• [9]Naftulin DH, Ware JE, Donnelly FA: The Doctor Fox Lecture: A Paradigm of Educational Seduction. J Med Educ 1973, 48:630-635.
• [10]Marsh HW, Ware JE: Effects of expressiveness, content coverage, and incentive on multidimensional student rating scales: New interpretations of the Dr. Fox effect J Educ Psychol 1982, 74:126-134.
• [11]Billings-Gagliardi S, Barrett SV, Mazor KM: Interpreting course evaluation results: insights from thinkaloud interviews with medical students. Med Educ 2004, 38:1061-1070.
• [12]Raupach T, Munscher C, Beissbarth T, Burckhardt G, Pukrop T: Towards outcome-based programme evaluation: Using student comparative self-assessments to determine teaching effectiveness. Med Teach 2011, 33:e446-e453.
• [13]Morgan DL: Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks; 1997.
• [14]Mayring P: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse - Grundlagen und Techniken. 11th edition. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim und Basel; 2010.
• [15]Müller-Hilke B: "Ruhm und Ehre" oder LOM für Lehre? - eine qualitative Analyse von Anreizverfahren für gute Lehre an Medizinischen Fakultäten in Deutschland. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2010, 27: . Doc43
• [16]Kogan JR, Shea JA: Course evaluation in medical education. Teach Teach Educ 2007, 23:251-264.
• [17]The German Council of Science and Humanities (Wissenschaftsrat): Empfehlungen zur Qualitaetsverbesserung von Lehre und Studium.  , Berlin; 2008.
• [18]Woloschuk W, Coderre S, Wright B, McLaughlin K: What Factors Affect Students' Overall Ratings of a Course? Acad Med 2011, 86:640-643.
• [19]Möltner A, Duelli R, Resch F, Schultz J-H, Jünger J: Fakultätsinterne Prüfungen an den deutschen medizinischen Fakultäten. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2010, 27(3):Doc 44.
• [20]Rindermann H, Schofield N: Generalizability of Multidimensional Student Ratings of University Instruction Across Courses and Teachers. Res High Educ 2001, 42:377-399.
• [21]Marsh HW, Roche LA: Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. Am Psychol 1997, 52:1187-1197.
• [22]Pessar LF, Levine RE, Bernstein CA, Cabaniss DS, Dickstein LJ, Graff SV, Hales DJ, Nadelson C, Robinowitz CB, Scheiber SC, et al.: Recruiting and rewarding faculty for medical student teaching. Acad Psychiatr 2006, 30:126-129.
• [23]Olmesdahl PJ: Rewards for teaching excellence: practice in South African medical schools. Med Educ 1997, 31:27-32.
• [24]Brawer J, Steinert Y, St-Cyr J, Watters K, Wood-Dauphinee S: The significance and impact of a faculty teaching award: disparate perceptions of department chairs and award recipients. Med Teach 2006, 28:614-617.
• [25]Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M, Prideaux D: A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Med Teach 2006, 28:497-526.
• [26]Adams M, Umbach P: Nonresponse and Online Student Evaluations of Teaching: Understanding the Influence of Salience, Fatigue, and Academic Environments. Res High Educ 2011,  :1-16. Epub ahead of print
• [27]Johnson TD: Online student ratings of instruction. New Dir Teach Learn 2003, 96:49-59.
• [28]Leite D, Santiago RA, Sarrico CS, Leite CL, Polidori M: Students' perceptions on the influence of institutional evaluation on universities. Assess Eval High Educ 2006, 31:625-638.
• [29]Clarke PN, Yaros PS: Research blenders: commentary and response. Transitions to new methodologies in nursing sciences. Nurs Sci Q 1988, 1:147-151.
• [30]Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ: Mixed Methods Research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res 2004, 33:12-26.
• [31]Morgan WF: Focus Groups. Ann Rev Sociol 1996, 22:129-152.
• [32]Carlsen B, Glenton C: What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Strobel L, Schneider NK, Krampe H, Beissbarth T, Pukrop T, Anders S, West R, Aveyard P, Raupach T: German medical students lack knowledge of how to treat smoking and problem drinking. Addiction 2012. Epub ahead of print
• [34]Dammer I, Szymkowiak F: Gruppendiskussionen in der Marktforschung. Rheingold Institut, Opladen; 2008.