Zanco Journal of Medical Sciences
 
Skip Navigation Links
Home
Available Issues
Search
Editorial Board
Information for Authors
Review Process
Copyright
Links and Contacts
  Zanko J Med Sci:  Dec. 2016; 20 (3): 1433-1439

Master students’ feedback about the teaching and learning process in the College of Nursing, Hawler Medical University

Nazar Ali Doski & Jawdat Mamand ALhag Baker & Norhan Zaki & Dara Abdulla Al-Banna
dx.doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2016.0042


Abstract

Background and objective: Systems for evaluation of teaching and course quality in higher education institutions have long been established and are becoming increasingly common in many developed and developing countries. This study was carried out to identify and assess the feedback of master students in the College of Nursing.

Methods: The study is a mixture of quantitative and qualitative design. The study sample included all master students who had attended the master course within two academic years (2012-2014) in the College of Nursing, Hawler Medical University. A formal questionnaire was used to obtain master students’ feedback, and an interview was used as the method of data collection.

Results: The mean age of the participants was 33 years for males and 29 years for females. Results revealed that feedback responses as a general were good in all factors underlining the study, and the lowest scores were shown in items related to teacher-student’s relationship and classroom organization.

Conclusion: Master students’ feedback was positive for most of the evaluation factors except teacher-student relationship and some items related to classroom organization.

Keywords: Master nursing student; Course evaluation; Feedback; Education.


Reference

1. Baldwin T, Blattner N. Guarding against potential bias in student evaluations: What every faculty member needs to know. College Teaching 2003; 51(1):27-32.

2. Beran T, Violato C, Kline D. What’s the ‘use’ of student ratings of instruction for administrators? One university’s experience. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 2007; 17(1):27-43.

3. Beran T, Violato C, Kline D, Frideres J. The utility of student ratings of instruction for students, faculty, and administrators: A “consequential validity” study. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 2005; 35(2): 49-70.

4. Bernstein DJ. Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change 2008; 40(2): 48-51.

5. Bothell T, Henderson T. Do online ratings of instruction make sense? In D.L. Sorenson & T.D. Johnson (Eds.), online student ratings of instruction [Special issue]. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2003; 96: 69-80.

6. Susan B. Nurse as Educator: Principles of Teaching and Learning for Nursing Practice, Second Edition, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Canada; 2003.

7. Harden R. AMEE Guide 21: curriculum mapping: a tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Evaluating the outcomes of undergraduate medical education. Medl Education 2003; 37: 580 – 1.

8. Taras M. To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 2003; 28 (5): 549-65.

9. Nicol D, Draper S. Redesigning written feedback to students when class sizes are large. Paperpresented at the Improving University Teachers Conference, Glasgow; 2008.

10. Osice JG, Elizabeth MD. The 2005 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our Nation's Schools, New York: GLSEN; 2006.

11. Greenho W, Beth R. Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age, American Educational Research Associatation, 2009; 38(4):246-59.

12. Elizabeth B, John F., personality and individual differences, Elsevier Publishing Campus 2004; 36(8):190-2.

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