Uijtdehaage Sebastian, O'Neal Christopher
Center for Educational Development and Research, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Med Educ. 2015 Sep;49(9):928-32. doi: 10.1111/medu.12647.
Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) inform faculty promotion decisions and course improvement, a process that is predicated on the assumption that students complete the evaluations with diligence. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this may not be so.
We sought to determine the degree to which medical students complete SETs deliberately in a classroom-style, multi-instructor course.
We inserted one fictitious lecturer into each of two pre-clinical courses. Students were required to submit their anonymous ratings of all lecturers, including the fictitious one, within 2 weeks after the course using a 5-point Likert scale, but could choose not to evaluate a lecturer. The following year, we repeated this but included a portrait of the fictitious lecturer. The number of actual lecturers in each course ranged from 23 to 52.
Response rates were 99% and 94%, respectively, in the 2 years of the study. Without a portrait, 66% (183 of 277) of students evaluated the fictitious lecturer, but fewer students (49%, 140 of 285) did so with a portrait (chi-squared test, p < 0.0001).
These findings suggest that many medical students complete SETs mindlessly, even when a photograph is included, without careful consideration of whom they are evaluating and much less of how that faculty member performed. This hampers programme quality improvement and may harm the academic advancement of faculty members. We present a framework that suggests a fundamentally different approach to SET that involves students prospectively and proactively.
学生对教学的评价（SETs）为教师晋升决策和课程改进提供依据，这一过程基于学生认真完成评价的假设。轶事证据表明情况可能并非如此。
我们试图确定在课堂式、多教师授课的课程中，医学生认真完成SETs的程度。
我们在两门临床前课程中各插入一名虚构讲师。学生被要求在课程结束后2周内，使用5点李克特量表对所有讲师（包括虚构讲师）提交匿名评价，但可以选择不评价某位讲师。次年，我们重复了这一过程，但增加了虚构讲师的照片。每门课程中实际讲师的数量在23至52名之间。
在研究的两年中，回复率分别为99%和94%。没有照片时，66%（277名学生中的183名）的学生评价了虚构讲师，但有照片时评价的学生较少（49%，285名学生中的140名）（卡方检验，p<0.0001）。
这些发现表明，许多医学生在完成SETs时是盲目进行的，即使有照片，也没有仔细考虑他们在评价谁，更没有考虑该教师的表现如何。这阻碍了项目质量的提高，可能会损害教师的学术进步。我们提出了一个框架，建议采用一种根本不同的SET方法，让学生积极主动地参与进来。
