Designing an effective student evaluation of teaching (SET) questionnaire for cadaveric dissection

Author(s):  
Joydeep D. Chaudhuri ◽  
B. Venugopal Rao

Recent changes in curriculum have seen a curtailment in the time devoted to the teaching of gross anatomy, one of the most integral components of medical education. This has resulted in the reduction, and in some cases the elimination of cadaveric dissection, most significantly due to the huge amount of resources involved in conducting a cadaveric dissection program. Nevertheless, cadaveric dissection still comprises a significant part of the time devoted to the teaching of gross anatomy. Hence it is of paramount importance that maximum benefit be derived from cadaveric dissections since it offers unique advantages, most significant being the appreciation of the three-dimensional concepts of body organization. The key part of effective anatomy teaching using cadaveric dissection is having the best instructors for this task. While student evaluation of teaching (SET) questionnaires have been used to evaluate instructor proficiency in lecture classes, there is no SET questionnaire that has been specifically designed for the assessment of instructors involved in cadaveric dissection. The aim of this article is to design a questionnaire specifically for the evaluation of the competency of instructors involved in cadaveric dissection, and reinforce the arguments for the continued use of cadaveric dissection in the teaching of anatomy. 

Author(s):  
Bob Uttl

AbstractIn higher education, anonymous student evaluation of teaching (SET) ratings are used to measure faculty’s teaching effectiveness and to make high-stakes decisions about hiring, firing, promotion, merit pay, and teaching awards. SET have many desirable properties: SET are quick and cheap to collect, SET means and standard deviations give aura of precision and scientific validity, and SET provide tangible seemingly objective numbers for both high-stake decisions and public accountability purposes. Unfortunately, SET as a measure of teaching effectiveness are fatally flawed. First, experts cannot agree what effective teaching is. They only agree that effective teaching ought to result in learning. Second, SET do not measure faculty’s teaching effectiveness as students do not learn more from more highly rated professors. Third, SET depend on many teaching effectiveness irrelevant factors (TEIFs) not attributable to the professor (e.g., students’ intelligence, students’ prior knowledge, class size, subject). Fourth, SET are influenced by student preference factors (SPFs) whose consideration violates human rights legislation (e.g., ethnicity, accent). Fifth, SET are easily manipulated by chocolates, course easiness, and other incentives. However, student ratings of professors can be used for very limited purposes such as formative feedback and raising alarm about ineffective teaching practices.


2013 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 598-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter Spooren ◽  
Bert Brockx ◽  
Dimitri Mortelmans

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document