Archive \ Volume.11 2020 Issue 1

The Perspective of Medical Faculty Members about the Challenges of Faculties' Evaluation System in Iranian Context: A Qualitative Study

Hossein Didehban , Azim Mirzazadeh* , Hamid Reza Khankeh
  1. PhD Candidate of medical education, Department of Medical Education, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  2. Department of Medical Education, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Health Professions Education Research Center, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  3. Department of Internal Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  4. Professor in Emergency & Disaster Health, Research Center in Emergency and Disaster Health, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  5. Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

Introduction: Faculty members’ evaluation is an important factor for promotion, tenure, payment of rewards or incentives, accountability and continuation of developing faculty at medical university. Studies showed that having a fair and meaningful faculty evaluation system has an impact on the performances of all faculty members. The present study aimed at investigating the challenges of faculty about faculty members’ evaluation systems. Methods: In this qualitative content analysis study, participants were 10 faculty members from the Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The participants were selected through purposeful sampling. The data which were collected through semi-structured interviews were used for establishing the codes, subcategories, and main categories. The collected data were analyzed by constant comparative analysis being recommended by Corbin and Strauss 2015. Results: The challenges of faculty evaluation system were explored in four main categories: “providing feedback for the faculty”, “objective evaluation", "evaluation based on student perspective”, and “faculty members’ performance analysis". Discussion: This study founded the faculty members who preferred to receive feedback, qualitative evaluation, the need for multiple sources of information gathering, greater transparency, increased trust, and accreditation of the evaluation process. It is recommended to explore the process of faculty evaluation in Iran.



How to cite:
Vancouver
Didehban H, Mirzazadeh A, Khankeh HR. The Perspective of Medical Faculty Members about the Challenges of Faculties' Evaluation System in Iranian Context: A Qualitative Study. Arch Pharm Pract. 2020;11(1):47-53.
APA
Didehban, H., Mirzazadeh, A., & Khankeh, H. R. (2020). The Perspective of Medical Faculty Members about the Challenges of Faculties' Evaluation System in Iranian Context: A Qualitative Study. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 11(1), 47-53.

Download Citation
References
  1. Aslam MN. Student rating as an effective tool for teacher evaluation. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan: JCPSP. 2013 Jan 1;23(1):37-4
  2. Arreola RA. Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems. Anker,; 2007.
  3. Bland CJ, Wersal L, VanLoy W, Jacott W. Evaluating faculty performance: a systematically designed and assessed approach. Academic medicine. 2002 Jan 1;77(1):15-30.
  4. Ghahrani N, Siamian H, Balaghafari A, Aligolbandi K, Vahedi M. The opinion of students and faculty members about the effect of the faculty performance evaluation. Materia socio-medica. 2015 Aug;27(4):267.
  5. Fluit CR, Bolhuis S, Grol R, Laan R, Wensing M. Assessing the quality of clinical teachers. Journal of general internal medicine. 2010 Dec 1;25(12):1337-4
  6. Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians’ clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7. Medical teacher. 2006 Jan 1;28(2):117-28.
  7. Tootoonchi M, Yamani N, Changiz T, Taleghani F, Mohammadzadeh Z. Assessment of educational criteria in academic promotion: Perspectives of faculty members of medical sciences universities in Iran. Journal of education and health promotion. 2014;3.
  8. Arreola RA. Issues in developing a faculty evaluation system. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1999 Jan 1;53(1):56-63.
  9. Berk RA. Using the 360 multisource feedback model to evaluate teaching and professionalism. Medical teacher. 2009 Jan 1;31(12):1073-80.
  10. Bastani P, Amini M, Tahernezhad A, Roohollahi N. The Tehran University of Medical Sciences Faculty Members’viewpoints about the Teachers’evaluation System: A Qualitative Study, 2014: 7-15.
  11. Bastani P, Vatankhah S, TaherNejad A, Ghasemi A. Teachers Evaluation Methods in Medical Education: Round Views of Faculty Members and Educational Experts. Galen Medical Journal. 2017 Sep 30;6(3):233-9.
  12. Seldin P. Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service: Anker Publishing Company; 2006.
  13. Ory JC. Teaching Evaluation: Past, Present, and Future. New directions for teaching and learning. 2000;83:13-8.
  14. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2008.
  15. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today. 2004 Feb 1;24(2):105-12.
  16. Bienstock JL, Katz NT, Cox SM, Hueppchen N, Erickson S, Puscheck EE. To the point: medical education reviews—providing feedback. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2007 Jun 1;196(6):508-13.
  17. Van De Ridder JM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, Ten Cate OT. What is feedback in clinical education?. Medical education. 2008 Feb;42(2):189-97.
  18. Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Medical education. 2010 Jan;44(1):101-8.
  19. Spriggs DR. A new academic faculty evaluation tool using graphic representation of clinical, research, teaching and administration domains. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2005 Jun 1;23(16_suppl):6095-.
  20. Kamali F, Yamani N, Changiz T. Investigating the faculty evaluation system in Iranian Medical Universities. Journal of education and health promotion. 2014;3.
  21. Wheeler P. Teacher Evaluation Glossary, 1992.
  22. Rahimi M, Zarooj Hosseini R, Darabian M, Taherian AA, Khosravi A. Teacher evaluation by students: A comprehensive approach. Strides in Development of Medical Education. 2012 Jul 15;9(1):34-45.
  23. Dargahi H, Movahedkor E, Shaham G. A Survey of faculty members and lecturers approach About teaching evaluation procedure by EDC questionnaire in School of Allied Health Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Payavard Salamat. 2009 Sep 15;3(2):75-84.
  24. Amini, M., Honardar, M. The view of faculties and medical students about the evaluation of faculty teaching experiences, 2008: 171-177.
  25. Uttl B, White CA, Gonzalez DW. Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2017 Sep 1;54:22-42.
  26. Clayson DE. Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education. 2009 Apr;31(1):16-30.
  27. Dargahi H, Mohammadzadeh N. Faculty members’ evaluation by students: valid or invalid. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2013 Apr 10;13(1):39-48.
  28. Kamali F, Yamani N, Changiz T, Zoubin F. Factors influencing the results of faculty evaluation in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Journal of education and health promotion. 2018;7.
  29. Brady KL, Eisler RM. Sex and gender in the college classroom: A quantitative analysis of faculty–student interactions and perceptions. Journal of educational psychology. 1999 Mar;91(1):127.
  30. Goldberg G, Callahan J. Objectivity of Student Evaluations of Instructors. Journal of Education for Business. 1991;66(6):377-78.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.