Sat, Apr 26, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 18, Issue 1 (2025)
JMED 2025, 18(1): 115-122 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: Ref. No. CON/DF/2023/8 20th June 2023
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Poorkiani M, Al Salmi N, Alshdefat A, Sheikhalipour Z. Nursing students' perceptions of teaching effectiveness evaluations: A cross-sectional descriptive study. JMED 2025; 18 (1) :115-122
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2231-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2231-en.html
1- Lecturer, Adult Health and Critical Care Department, College of Nursing, Sultan Qaboos University. Muscat, Oman.
2- Department of Adult Health and Critical Care, College of Nursing, Sultan Qaboos University. Muscat, Oman.
3- Department of Medical and Surgical Nursing, College of Nursing, Sultan Qaboos University. Muscat, Oman.
4- Department of Medical and Surgical Nursing, Nursing and Midwifery School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. ,sheikhalipourz@gmail.com
2- Department of Adult Health and Critical Care, College of Nursing, Sultan Qaboos University. Muscat, Oman.
3- Department of Medical and Surgical Nursing, College of Nursing, Sultan Qaboos University. Muscat, Oman.
4- Department of Medical and Surgical Nursing, Nursing and Midwifery School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. ,
Abstract: (160 Views)
Background & Objective: While students' perceptions are rarely discussed in studies on student evaluations of teaching effectiveness, the majority concentrate on the features, validity, and reliability of the questionnaire used, the variables affecting students' ratings, and the proper assessment of teaching quality. Therefore, this study aims to look into how students at Sultan Qaboos University's College of Nursing perceive and behave when evaluating the faculty.
Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out in the academic year 2023–2024 during the summer and fall semesters. Two hundred thirty undergraduate students from Sultan Qaboos University's College of Nursing participated in the study. Convenience sampling was employed to gather data. A self-administered questionnaire was used to learn more about the students' opinions of Teaching Effectiveness (SETE). SPSS version 29 was used to analyze the data. The sample's demographics and the items about teaching effectiveness were described using frequency analysis. Furthermore, a correlational test was used to find relationships between SETE levels and demographic characteristics.
Results: According to the study, the estimated presence of false information was 47.24%, and the mean perceived accuracy of evaluations was 50.78. A sizable percentage acknowledged providing or being aware of assessments that were either higher or lower than appropriate. There were different opinions about the evaluation process; 84.6% of respondents supported student evaluations, while 55.1% thought teachers read comments. With 76.1% of respondents considering false information to be cheating, ethical issues were raised. Statistical analyses revealed no significant relationships between sex and questionnaire responses, nor between evaluation perceptions, demographic characteristics, and Grade Point Average (GPA).
Conclusion: The results show how complicated student opinions are regarding teacher assessments, particularly when it comes to truth and morality. The study calls for improvements in SETE processes to promote more reliable and reasonable evaluations.
Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out in the academic year 2023–2024 during the summer and fall semesters. Two hundred thirty undergraduate students from Sultan Qaboos University's College of Nursing participated in the study. Convenience sampling was employed to gather data. A self-administered questionnaire was used to learn more about the students' opinions of Teaching Effectiveness (SETE). SPSS version 29 was used to analyze the data. The sample's demographics and the items about teaching effectiveness were described using frequency analysis. Furthermore, a correlational test was used to find relationships between SETE levels and demographic characteristics.
Results: According to the study, the estimated presence of false information was 47.24%, and the mean perceived accuracy of evaluations was 50.78. A sizable percentage acknowledged providing or being aware of assessments that were either higher or lower than appropriate. There were different opinions about the evaluation process; 84.6% of respondents supported student evaluations, while 55.1% thought teachers read comments. With 76.1% of respondents considering false information to be cheating, ethical issues were raised. Statistical analyses revealed no significant relationships between sex and questionnaire responses, nor between evaluation perceptions, demographic characteristics, and Grade Point Average (GPA).
Conclusion: The results show how complicated student opinions are regarding teacher assessments, particularly when it comes to truth and morality. The study calls for improvements in SETE processes to promote more reliable and reasonable evaluations.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2024/07/24 | Accepted: 2025/02/5 | Published: 2025/04/14
Received: 2024/07/24 | Accepted: 2025/02/5 | Published: 2025/04/14
References
1. Larry Crumbley D, Reichelt KJ. Teaching effectiveness, impression management, and dysfunctional behavior: Student evaluation of teaching control data. Quality Assurance in Education. 2009;17(4):377-92. [DOI]
2. Oermann MH, Conklin JL, Rushton S, Bush MA. Student evaluations of teaching (SET): guidelines for their use. Nursing Forum. 2018;53(3):280-285. [DOI]
3. Spencer KJ, Schmelkin LP. Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2002;27(5):397-409 [DOI]
4. Otani K, Kim BJ, Cho JI. Student evaluation of teaching (SET) in higher education: how to use SET more effectively and efficiently in public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education. 2012;18(3):531-44. [DOI]
5. Jones J, Gaffney-Rhys R, Jones E. Handle with care! An exploration of the potential risks associated with the publication and summative usage of student evaluation of teaching (SET) results. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2014;38(1):37-56 [DOI]
6. Mohammed TA, Pandhiani SM. Analysis of factors affecting student evaluation of teaching effectiveness in Saudi higher education: the case of Jubail University College. American Journal of Educational Research. 2017;5(5):464-75. [DOI]
7. 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;54:22-42. [DOI]
8. Vilchez JA, Kruse J, Puffer M, Dudovitz RN. Teachers and school health leaders' perspectives on distance learning physical education during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of School Health. 2021;91(7):541-9. [DOI]
9. Paufler NA, Sloat EF. Using standards to evaluate accountability policy in context: school administrator and teacher perceptions of a teacher evaluation system. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2020;64:100806. [DOI]
10. Carless D, Winstone N. Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education. 2023;28(1):150-63. [DOI]
11. Esarey J, Valdes N. Unbiased, reliable, and valid student evaluations can still be unfair. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2020;45(8):1106-20 [DOI]
12. Quinn DM. Experimental evidence on teachers’ racial bias in student evaluation: the role of grading scales. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2020;42(3):375-92 [DOI]
13. Kreitzer RJ, Sweet-Cushman J. Evaluating student evaluations of teaching: a review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2021;20(3–4):1–12. [DOI]
14. Rollett W, Bijlsma H, Röhl S. Student feedback on teaching in schools: using student perceptions for the development of teaching and teachers. Springer, Cham. 2021: 237-56. [DOI]
15. Boysen GA. The multidimensional nature of teaching and student evaluations: commentary on students' judgments of learning and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2020:9(2);152–156.
Boysen GA. The multidimensional nature of teaching and student evaluations: commentary on students' judgments of learning and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2020:9(2);152–156. [DOI]
16. Baniasadi A, Salehi K, Khodaie E, Bagheri Noaparast K, Izanloo B. Fairness in classroom assessment: a systematic review. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2022:1-9 [DOI]
17. Clayson DE. A comprehensive critique of student evaluation of teaching: Critical perspectives on validity, reliability, and impartiality. Routledge; 2020. [DOI]
18. Stroebe W. Student evaluations of teaching encourage poor teaching and contribute to grade inflation: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2020;42(4):276-94. [DOI]
19. Carpenter SK, Witherby AE, Tauber SK. On students'(mis) judgments of learning and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2020;9(2):137-51 [DOI]
20. Chamberlin K, Yasué M, Chiang I-CA. The impact of grades on student motivation. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2023;24(2):109-24. [DOI]
21. Berezvai Z, Lukáts GD, Molontay R. Can professors buy better evaluation with lenient grading? The effect of grade inflation on student evaluation of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2021;46(5):793-808. [DOI]
22. Chávez K, Mitchell KM. Exploring bias in student evaluations: gender, race, and ethnicity. Political Science & Politics. 2020;53(2):270-4. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
