Objectives: This study aims to identify the effects of evaluation on teaching and discusses improvements in the work of the evaluation office. Methods: Teaching evaluation data from 2006 to 2009 was collected and analyzed. Additional surveys were conducted to collect the perceptions of students, faculty members, peer reviewers, deans and chairs about teaching evaluation. Results: Evaluation scores for more than half of faculty members increased, significantly more for junior compared with senior faculty, over the period of the study. Student attendance and satisfaction with elective courses increased after interventions identified by teaching evaluations. All participants believed that teaching evaluation had positive effects on teaching quality and classroom behavior. Seventythree percent of faculty believed the evaluation helped to improve their teaching skills. Faculty perceptions of the helpfulness of teaching evaluation were related to the speed in which evaluations were reported, the quality of comments received, and the attitudes held by faculty towards evaluation. All the faculty members, chairs and deans read evaluation reports, and most of them believed the reports were helpful. Conclusions: Teaching evaluation at SMMU was perceived to improve both the teaching quality and classroom behavior. Faster feedback and higher quality comments are perceived to provide more help to faculty members.

Introduction:A system of teaching evaluation was developed at the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai. The system combined student ratings of teachers with peer reviews. This study explores factors that may influence teaching evaluations, as well as the perceptions of effectiveness of the evaluation system. Methods: Teaching evaluation data from 2006 to 2009 were analyzed. A survey was conducted to collect the perceptions of students and faculty members about the system. Results: Teaching evaluation ratings were higher when the faculty knew which course session would be observed. Student ratings showed a correlation with peer ratings. Advanced students provided higher ratings. Currently employed faculty peer reviewers provided higher ratings than retired reviewers. Peer reviewers in the same department as the faculty being observed provided higher ratings than peers from other departments. Reviewers with prior experience provided ratings similar to new reviewers. All faculty members indicated they would not make their course easier in response to student evaluations. Conclusion: The year of student enrollment in the program, relationships among peer reviewers and faculty, and whether faculty are cognizant of which session would be observed have a direct impact on rating results. There is a correlation between the student evaluation and peer evaluation. Training reviewers is important to improve rating validity. Faculty members appreciate the assistance for improvement of teaching provided by the evaluations.