Methods and Purposes for Conducting Students’ Course Evaluations Reported by North American Dental School and Dental Hygiene Program Leaders: A Preliminary Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this preliminary survey study was to determine the perceptions of leaders of dental schools and dental hygiene programs regarding methods of and purposes for conducting students' course evaluations and their role in course improvement, curriculum design, and faculty assessment. A short electronic survey was distributed in 2016 to the academic deans of all 76 dental schools in the U.S. and Canada and a convenience sample of program directors of 232 of the total 332 accredited dental hygiene programs. Individuals from 93 institutions responded for an overall response rate of 30%: 30 of 76 dental schools (39.5% response rate) and 63 of the 232 dental hygiene programs (27% response rate). All of the respondents (100%) reported that their institutions' full-time faculty members were assessed by students in course evaluations for each course and semester they taught. However, only 78% reported that their part-time faculty members were evaluated by students. Course evaluations were mandatory in 62% (n=58) of the responding institutions, with the remaining 38% (n=35) optional. Respondents indicated course directors received the evaluation results for purposes of annual review (n=73, 78%) and instructional review (n=70, 75%). Further investigation of the use and effects of student evaluations is needed to better understand their role in faculty assessment and other aspects of the administration of dental schools and dental hygiene programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".