Abstract Title
Development of Teaching Evaluation by Electronic Form


Nualpis Intaratep


5AA Evaluation of the teacher


Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima hospital, School of medicine, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand




Post teaching evaluation helps teachers to improve and refine their teaching. But how to collect it properly is still a problem.1,2  New generation of medical students need the evaluation model for their age. 3,4


1. To develop an electronic form in mobile phone to evaluate post-teaching.

2. To find out how to improve post-teaching evaluation rate of response

Summary of Work
  • This is an action research governed on 48 of 5th year medical students during studying rehabilitation medicine at Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima Hospital, Thailand from June 2014 to March 2015. 
  • They were divided into 3 phases by 3 groups of student’s rotation.                                                                                                       
  • Phase I: The electronic form (4-points rating scales) was constructed and tested by the first group in June 2014, then it was improved. 


  • Phase II and III: The 2nd and 3rd groups answered the improved electronic form, followed by questionnaire, focus group and in-depth interviewing. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and content analysis.          
  1. Gathering Feedback from Students from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/student-feedback/
  2. Philip Stark. Do student evaluations measure teaching effectiveness? from http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/14/do-student-evaluations-measure-teaching-effectiveness/
  3. P21's Framework for 21st Century Learning from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
  4. Education for the 21st Century: The Basics from www.smlcs.org/publications/21stcenturyeducation.pdf
  5. Berk, R.A. (2012). Top 20 strategies to increase the online response rates of student rating scales. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 98-107.
  6. 10 Easy Ways to Increase Response Rates for Your Online Survey from http://www.questionpro.com/a/showArticle.do?articleID=deploy01 
  7. Duncan D. Nulty*. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 33, No. 3, June 2008, 301–14.
  8. 7 Things to Remember When Choosing Survey Incentives from https://www.surveygizmo.com/survey-blog/affordable-survey-incentives-that-motivate-your-respondents/

Summary of Results

          The results from questionnaire showed average age of 22.81 (0.64) years old, an overall satisfaction at good level (3.89 (1.04)). The highest score was the privacy (4.48 (0.81), the lowest score was the layout of electronic form (3.9 (1.09)).

           The content analysis revealed that the medical students were satisfied with the electronic form because its 2EP: Easily to access, Everytime to feedback and its Privacy. However, there was room to improve this form especially the layout and notification technique. 

           Most of the students knew that evaluation helps teacher to improve their teaching but the lower rate of response may cause from  


“If I weren’t do it immediately after the class had finished, I frequently forgot to do it.”

(FGa1, FGh5, FGi2, FGk5, FGm2)


“I know it’s a good thing to do, but I rarely did it because it doesn’t affect me”

(FGa5, FGg5)


“When I was the 1st year medical student, I were forced to do the post teaching evaluation by the university because of “No evaluation – No grade report” which I thought it truly was a bad idea and I preferred the idea of receiving some benefit if I did it on time.'' 

(FGi15, FGd17, FGi8)

            So, there are 2IP techniques to help improving the rate of response: Immediately, Incentive but not Punishment.


Post-teaching electronic evaluation form applying via mobile phone has shown to be more convenient of getting students’ feedback and well secret-keeping. However, a good layout and notification technique need to be improved.


Take-home Messages

Electronic form suited the new generation of medical students because of its “2EP. And the 2IP” technique will help improving the rate of response.



I sincerely thank Ratchawan Suksatien, M.D. and Sawitree Visanuyothin, M.D. for all encouragement and support.

Summary of Work
Summary of Results



Number (%)

Sex (N = 32)




17 (53.1)

 15 (46.9)

Number of students who owned smart phones

     Owned smart phones

     Did not own smart phones

Frequency of evaluation


     Less than 50% of all

     More than 50% of all


ช่วงเวลาที่ใช้ในการประเมิน : Time of evaluation


31 (96.1)

1 (3.9)


0 (0)

14 (43.8)

8 (25.0)

10 (31.2)

     Immediately after the class was finished

     Within that day


     No exact time

14 (43.8)

1 (3.1)

11 (34.4)

5 (15.6)


Electronic form evaluation


Mean  (SD)


4.11 (0.95)

Speed of access

4.13 (1.02)

Form layout

Letter size

Fast feedback response to medical students


Overall: ภาพรวม

3.80 (1.09)

4.17 (0.77)

4.22 (0.92)

4.46 (0.78)

3.89 (1.04)

Take-home Messages
Send ePoster Link