How do students view teaching? Evaluation – results of the student survey for the 2024/2025 academic year

We are publishing the summary results of the student evaluation of teaching for the past academic year. Although student satisfaction is not the only criterion for the quality of the educational process, it is very important feedback for the faculty management and course guarantors.

---

A. Responsiveness and weight of results

The informative value of the survey depends significantly on how many students participated in it (see the overview of responsiveness below). For the entire faculty, this was only 9 percent in the last academic year, so this parameter unfortunately remains low.

Compared to previous years, there has been a desirable increase in the responsiveness of General Medicine students from an average of 9 percent to 12.3 percent this year. Responsiveness was highest in the first four years (up to 18 percent, averaging 16.3 percent). However, in the highest years, it traditionally fell sharply to a mere 3 percent responsiveness in the state exam year.

The results obtained from students in the bachelor's study programme in Physiotherapy (9.6 percent) are also borderline. Nevertheless, even in this study programme, almost half of the subjects are evaluated by a single student or are not evaluated at all.

In other study programmes (General Medicine, General Nursing, Paediatric Nursing, NMgr. Applied Physiotherapy, and Radiological Assistance), the response rate was very low, so the informative value of such an evaluation is minimal to nonexistent. And that is a great pity.

Given the above, the survey results must be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, for a number of subjects, the survey results can provide useful feedback to subject guarantors or alert faculty management to potentially problematic subjects that warrant detailed attention.

Table: Overall responsiveness in individual study programmes and by academic year
Study programme	Year	Responsiveness
Applied Physiotherapy	1.	3 %
	2.	1 %	total	2,00 %
Physiotherapy (Bc)	1.	13 %
	2.	9 %
	3.	7 %	total	9,60 %
General Medicine (MD)	1.	3 %
	2.	5 %
	3.	9 %
	4.	5 %
	5.	3 %
	6.	1 %	total	4,30 %
Paediatric Nursing	1.	1 %
	2.	9 %
	3.	1 %	total	3,67 %
Radiology Assistance	1.	4 %
	2.	9 %	total	6,50 %
General Medicine (MUDr.)	1.	18 %
	2.	12 %
	3.	17 %
	4.	18 %
	5.	6 %
	6.	3 %	total	12,30 %
General Nursing	1.	0 %
	2.	1 %
	3.	0 %	total	< 1 %
Total		9 %

B. Overall assessment of subjects

The overall evaluation of courses consisted of five questions covering five teaching parameters. Students rated courses on a scale of 1 to 4, as in school; the response 5 (cannot/do not want to evaluate) was not included in the evaluation:

1. Benefit
2. Study materials
3. Teaching skills of instructors.
4. Organisation of teaching
5. Form of teaching

The overall assessment of teaching quality at the entire Second Faculty of Medicine of Charles University is quite favorable, with an average rating of 1.76. The teaching skills of the lecturers are rated most highly, while the greatest room for improvement is in the study materials.

Table: List of questions and their overall average rating in the 2024/2025 academic year:

1. The course was beneficial for me (acquisition of new knowledge or skills):
   Average rating: 1.74
2. The study materials (books, lecture notes, online materials, handouts, etc.) for this course are adequate:
   Average rating: 1.93
3. Rate the teaching skills of the instructors (clarity of explanation, ability to engage, establish contact, and motivate students during class, etc.):
   Average rating: 1.57
4. The teaching of this subject was well organized (sufficient information about the course, effective use of time – punctual start times, no downtime, continuity between individual parts, etc.):
   Average rating: 1.74
5. The teaching was appropriate (interaction, practical demonstrations, models, video demonstrations, etc.) and interesting: 
   Average rating: 1.8

The disadvantage of evaluating subjects is that, logically, the evaluation of some departments disappears in the survey if they are involved in teaching more than one subject (Cell Biology, Clinical Propaedeutics, Neurology, Infectious Diseases, Internal Medicine, Surgery, etc.). However, any significant differences within a single subject can usually be identified from the verbal comments and evaluations of individual teachers.

C. Results of subject assessment

Compared to previous years, only slight changes and shifts are apparent overall, with the average ratings for individual subjects being more or less similar and the ranking of departments also being very similar.

The only significant change in the rating towards a significantly better one (i.e., "rising star of the year") in the 2024/2025 academic year was recorded in the subject of Pharmacology, for which we congratulate the management of the department!

In the General Medicine study programme, the overall average rating was 1.81 (median 1.75), with the highest-rated subject having an average grade of 1.1 and the lowest-rated subject having an average grade of 2.91.

In the long term, theoretical and preclinical subjects are rated better than clinical subjects.

Below is the ranking of subjects in the study program where it made sense due to the responsiveness and weight of the data obtained (i.e., General Medicine, Czech parallel). For other study programs, ranking makes no sense, as low responsiveness to course evaluations often means that a single evaluation is used as the basis for the ranking, and a significant portion of courses were not evaluated at all. The goal of course evaluations is to improve the quality of teaching, not to present self-serving rankings or to pillory those who performed worse than their colleagues. Therefore, only the top half of the departments are shown. However, the faculty management has access to the complete results.

Table: General medicine – ranking and evaluation of subjects overall and in individual factors
				Evaluation of individual parameters
		evrage	responsiveness	question 1	question 2	question 3	question 4	question 5
1.	First Aid	1,1	27%	1,06	1,28	1,01	1,04	1,12
2.	Latin Terminology	1,17	18%	1,11	1,14	1,11	1,16	1,07
3.	Forensic medicine	1,27	23%	1,14	1,65	1,24	1,32	1,15
4.	AHE	1,33	23%	1,16	1,39	1,32	1,35	1,34
5.	Pathology	1,34	28%	1,22	1,38	1,22	1,29	1,38
6.	Microbiology	1,34	12%	1,21	1,29	1,25	1,42	1,47
7.	Professional Communication	1,39	18%	1,42	1,5	1,3	1,35	1,4
8.	Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine	1,39	10%	1,12	2	1,25	1,12	1,41
9.	Dermatovenerology	1,39	10%	1,5	1,38	1,44	1,25	1,38
10.	Clinical Microbiology	1,43	27%	1,4	1,48	1,18	1,39	1,51
11.	Nursing III	1,44	15%	1,32	1,52	1,52	1,52	1,41
12.	Pharmacology I	1,44	12%	1,42	1,67	1,29	1,46	1,39
13.	English Terminology I	1,45	14%	1,8	1,41	1,26	1,5	1,32
14.	Neurology	1,49	9%	1,4	1,6	1,67	1,4	1,46
15.	Nursing Practice I	1,52	8%	1,54	1,25	1,64	1,54	1,57
16.	Urology	1,53	9%	1,53	1,6	1,53	1,47	1,52
17.	Onkology	1,55	5%	1,56	2,11	1,44	1,78	1,45
18.	Imaging Methods and Nuclear Medicine	1,56	20%	1,47	1,92	1,58	1,69	1,39
19.	Otolaryngology	1,57	18%	1,36	1,91	1,85	1,48	1,43
20.	Cardiovascular Medicine	1,59	6%	1,9	2	2,1	1,8	1,24
21.	English Terminology II	1,6	10%	2	1,63	1,37	1,53	1,47
22.	Infectious medicine	1,6	11%	1,39	1,78	1,22	1,5	1,72
23.	Biology I	1,61	13%	1,66	1,72	1,47	1,72	1,57
24.	Surgery I	1,62	19%	1,7	2,06	1,58	1,55	1,4
25.	Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine	1,63	15%	1,73	2,03	1,39	1,65	1,42
26.	Paediatry III	1,64	13%	1,58	2,32	1,84	1,8	1,38
27.	Farmakology II	1,66	28%	1,38	1,6	1,67	1,8	1,73
28.	Biology II	1,67	17%	1,54	2,11	1,5	1,75	1,63
29.	Nursing II	1,67	11%	1,65	2	1,77	1,72	1,51
30.	Physiology	1,67	16%	1,5	2,06	1,68	1,59	1,64
31.	Rehabilitation	1,69	16%	1,84	1,97	1,81	1,87	1,21
32.	K10	1,75	2%	2	2	1,5	1,5	2
33–63.	...

D. How did we use the survey results? 

• The best teachers will be announced and awarded by the dean of the faculty at the faculty's annual ball.
• The results of the evaluation of individual subjects and the relevant teachers, including a verbal evaluation of the subject and teachers, were provided to their guarantors/heads of departments, together with the averages of the answers to individual survey questions across the entire faculty (for comparison purposes). The guarantors will inform the staff of their clinic/institute who participated in the teaching about the results to an appropriate extent and, after joint discussion, will take specific measures to improve the quality of teaching.
• The course guarantors will prepare a written reflection on the survey results, which will be posted on the faculty website as usual.
• As in previous years, a joint discussion of the evaluation results will take place between the faculty management and the management of selected departments during this academic year.
• The summary results of the evaluation will also be made available to the Pedagogical Committee of the Academic Senate of the Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University.
• The results of the evaluation, particularly questions 3 and 5 (teaching skills and teaching methods), are consulted with the newly established Centre for the Development of Communication and Teaching Skills at the Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, with a view to offering targeted assistance to specific departments.

Conclusion

We once again call on students to evaluate teaching in the coming academic year and to do so responsibly and in a timely manner, especially in block teaching. It is not only course coordinators, teachers, and faculty management who are responsible for the quality of teaching, but also the students themselves. If we do not receive high-quality and sufficiently representative feedback, we cannot improve.

Prof. Josef Zámečník
Vice Dean for Study Affairs