医学教育博士课程的元评价

E. Moradi, G. Pourbairamian, G. Ramezani, Z. Sohrabi, M. Aalaa, A. Norouzi
{"title":"医学教育博士课程的元评价","authors":"E. Moradi, G. Pourbairamian, G. Ramezani, Z. Sohrabi, M. Aalaa, A. Norouzi","doi":"10.18502/jmed.v17i2.10608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Educational programs need to be evaluated in order to achieve educational goals, improve quality and maintain dynamics. Regardless of the type of evaluation, in every evaluation there is a possibility of bias in the evaluator's decisions. Therefore, meta-evaluation is necessary. The purpose of this research is to Meta-evaluate the PhD program in the field of medical education in Iran University of Medical Sciences, using the Staffel Beam meta-evaluation scale. \nResearch method: This study is a cross-sectional research using Staffel Beam's meta-evaluation checklist, which includes four standards. The utility standard had 7 indicators, feasibility, 3 indicators, propriety 8 indicators, accuracy had 12 indicators, and each of which was checked separately. \nResults: The results indicated that the highest overall score was related to the accuracy and the lowest was assigned to the practicality and ethical issues. The highest amount of evaluation power was related to the feasibility standard and the lowest was related to the propriety standard. In the final review of four meta-evaluation indicators, it is clear that the status of the feasibility standard is very good and the moral standard indicator is average. The standards of usefulness and accuracy are also in good condition. \nConclusion: Taking into account of the scores, it seems that the focus should be on training the evaluators and the topic of evaluation to improve the current circumstance. Moreover, maintaining the standards with high score is important. However, more attention should be paid to ethical issues in evaluation, such as making agreements between the evaluator and the evaluation client.","PeriodicalId":30509,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education and Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta Evaluation of PhD Course in Medical Education\",\"authors\":\"E. Moradi, G. Pourbairamian, G. Ramezani, Z. Sohrabi, M. Aalaa, A. Norouzi\",\"doi\":\"10.18502/jmed.v17i2.10608\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Educational programs need to be evaluated in order to achieve educational goals, improve quality and maintain dynamics. Regardless of the type of evaluation, in every evaluation there is a possibility of bias in the evaluator's decisions. Therefore, meta-evaluation is necessary. The purpose of this research is to Meta-evaluate the PhD program in the field of medical education in Iran University of Medical Sciences, using the Staffel Beam meta-evaluation scale. \\nResearch method: This study is a cross-sectional research using Staffel Beam's meta-evaluation checklist, which includes four standards. The utility standard had 7 indicators, feasibility, 3 indicators, propriety 8 indicators, accuracy had 12 indicators, and each of which was checked separately. \\nResults: The results indicated that the highest overall score was related to the accuracy and the lowest was assigned to the practicality and ethical issues. The highest amount of evaluation power was related to the feasibility standard and the lowest was related to the propriety standard. In the final review of four meta-evaluation indicators, it is clear that the status of the feasibility standard is very good and the moral standard indicator is average. The standards of usefulness and accuracy are also in good condition. \\nConclusion: Taking into account of the scores, it seems that the focus should be on training the evaluators and the topic of evaluation to improve the current circumstance. Moreover, maintaining the standards with high score is important. However, more attention should be paid to ethical issues in evaluation, such as making agreements between the evaluator and the evaluation client.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmed.v17i2.10608\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmed.v17i2.10608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:为了实现教育目标、提高教育质量和保持教育动态,需要对教育项目进行评估。无论评估的类型如何,在每一次评估中,评估者的决定都有可能存在偏见。因此,meta评价是必要的。本研究的目的是利用Staffel Beam元评价量表对伊朗医学科学大学医学教育领域的博士课程进行元评价。研究方法:本研究采用Staffel Beam的元评价清单进行横断面研究,该清单包括四个标准。实用性标准有7个指标,可行性标准有3个指标,适宜性标准有8个指标,准确性标准有12个指标。结果:综合得分最高的是准确性问题,最低的是实用性和伦理性问题。评价权最高的是可行性标准,最低的是适宜性标准。在对四项元评价指标的最终评审中,可以看出可行性标准的状况很好,道德标准指标的状况一般。有用性和准确性的标准也处于良好状态。结论:从分数的角度来看,应该把重点放在对评价者和评价题的培训上,以改善现状。此外,保持高分标准很重要。然而,在评估中需要更多的关注伦理问题,如评估者和评估客户之间的协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Meta Evaluation of PhD Course in Medical Education
Introduction: Educational programs need to be evaluated in order to achieve educational goals, improve quality and maintain dynamics. Regardless of the type of evaluation, in every evaluation there is a possibility of bias in the evaluator's decisions. Therefore, meta-evaluation is necessary. The purpose of this research is to Meta-evaluate the PhD program in the field of medical education in Iran University of Medical Sciences, using the Staffel Beam meta-evaluation scale. Research method: This study is a cross-sectional research using Staffel Beam's meta-evaluation checklist, which includes four standards. The utility standard had 7 indicators, feasibility, 3 indicators, propriety 8 indicators, accuracy had 12 indicators, and each of which was checked separately. Results: The results indicated that the highest overall score was related to the accuracy and the lowest was assigned to the practicality and ethical issues. The highest amount of evaluation power was related to the feasibility standard and the lowest was related to the propriety standard. In the final review of four meta-evaluation indicators, it is clear that the status of the feasibility standard is very good and the moral standard indicator is average. The standards of usefulness and accuracy are also in good condition. Conclusion: Taking into account of the scores, it seems that the focus should be on training the evaluators and the topic of evaluation to improve the current circumstance. Moreover, maintaining the standards with high score is important. However, more attention should be paid to ethical issues in evaluation, such as making agreements between the evaluator and the evaluation client.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Game-Based Learning for Soft Skills Using the Peer Learning Method in the E-learning Process: Creating a Support-Motivational Mechanism for the Parasitology MS Students in Shahid Sadougi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd E-learning Quality Assessment Indicators: A Narrative Review ChatGPT in writing scientific articles: friend or foe? Explaining Medical Students' Experiences of the Challenges of Clinical Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Qualitative Content Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1