James W McAuley1, Jennifer Lynn Backo1, Kristen Finley Sobota2, Anne H Metzger3, Timothy Ulbrich4. 1. The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, Columbus, OH. 2. Ohio Northern University, Raabe College of Pharmacy, Ada, OH. 3. University of Cincinnati James L. Winkle College of Pharmacy, Cincinnati, OH. 4. Northeast Ohio Medical University College of Pharmacy, Rootstown, OH. Electronic address: tulbrich@neomed.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify motivators and barriers to pharmacy student completion of instructor evaluations, and to develop potential strategies to improve the evaluation process. METHODS: Completed at four Ohio Colleges of Pharmacy, Phase I consisted of a student/faculty survey and Phase II consisted of joint student/faculty focus groups to discuss Phase I data and to problem solve. RESULTS: In Phase I, the top three student-identified and faculty-perceived motivators to completion of evaluations were to (1) make the course better, (2) earn bonus points, and (3) improve the instructor's teaching. The top three student-identified barriers to completion of evaluations were having to (1) evaluate multiple instructors, (2) complete several evaluations around the same time, and (3) complete lengthy evaluations. Phase II focus groups identified a number of potential ways to enhance the motivators and reduce barriers, including but not limited to making sure faculty convey to students that the feedback they provide is useful and to provide examples of how student feedback has been used to improve their teaching/the course. CONCLUSIONS: Students and faculty identified motivators and barriers to completing instructor evaluations and were willing to work together to improve the process.
OBJECTIVE: To identify motivators and barriers to pharmacy student completion of instructor evaluations, and to develop potential strategies to improve the evaluation process. METHODS: Completed at four Ohio Colleges of Pharmacy, Phase I consisted of a student/faculty survey and Phase II consisted of joint student/faculty focus groups to discuss Phase I data and to problem solve. RESULTS: In Phase I, the top three student-identified and faculty-perceived motivators to completion of evaluations were to (1) make the course better, (2) earn bonus points, and (3) improve the instructor's teaching. The top three student-identified barriers to completion of evaluations were having to (1) evaluate multiple instructors, (2) complete several evaluations around the same time, and (3) complete lengthy evaluations. Phase II focus groups identified a number of potential ways to enhance the motivators and reduce barriers, including but not limited to making sure faculty convey to students that the feedback they provide is useful and to provide examples of how student feedback has been used to improve their teaching/the course. CONCLUSIONS: Students and faculty identified motivators and barriers to completing instructor evaluations and were willing to work together to improve the process.