[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 7, Number 3 (10-2015) ::
Research in Medical Education 2015, 7(3): 20-28 Back to browse issues page
Viewpoint of faculty members about educational evaluation models in Urmia University of medical sciences in 2014
M Sheikhzadeh, B Nabilou *, Sh Babaei
School of Public Health, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran , bnabil@umsu.ac.ir
Abstract:   (1528 Views)

Introduction: Higher education system is a great asset and play different roles in societies. Ensuring of acquisition of knowledge, skills and competencies were required by the graduates and the need for evaluation as a management practice are prerequisite for this system. The present study aimed to assess the common methods of educational evaluation from the views of faculty members in Urmia University of medical sciences.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 167 members of the Faculty of Urmia Medical Sciences were selected in 2013. Data were collected by a Researcher made questionnaire. Friedman test, t-test and ANOVA were used for data analysis.

Results: Of 165 respondents, 27 were PhD and 108 were medical specialists. From the view of faculty members, participatory and goal-free models were more favorable. Analysis of the results revealed preference models on the basis of teaching experience; gender and having managerial position were not significant. ANOVA and LSD tests showed that in the  goal-oriented model, difference of mean scores between the ranks of associate professor (3.77) and assistant professor (4.12), (P=0.003) and in the management-oriented model difference of mean scores between the ranks of lecturer (4.66) and assistant professor (4.38), were significant(P=0.04).

Conclusion: Viewpoint and preferences of faculty members indicated that not only the defined goals objectives and results but also unforseen actual results, participation of stakeholders, particularly students, who were important in the selection of evaluation models must be considered, so that it will strengthen their credibility and effectiveness.

Keywords: Assessment, Education, Faculty, Evaluation
Full-Text [PDF 404 kb]   (513 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
1. Al-Hawaj AY, Elali W, Twizell EH.Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Issues and Challenges. London: Taylor & Francis Group;2008.
2. Luc W, Sjur B.The Public Responsibility for Higher Education and Research Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing; 2005.
3. Archer L, Hutchings M, Ross A, Leathwood C, Gilchrist R, Phillips D. Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of Exclusion and Inclusion. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library; 2005.
4. Benjamin R, Klein S. Assessment versus Accountability in Higher Education: Notes on Reconciliation. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Commissioned Paper Series: 2007; 1-26.
5. Mohammadi R. [Practical instruction for Internal Evaluation in Iran Higher Education]. Tehran: The National Organization of Educational Testing in Iran (NOET) Publishers; 2004.[ Persian]
6. Holte-McKenzie M, Forde S, Theobald S. Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy. Evaluation and Program Planning 2006; 29: 365–376.
7. Cannon R, Newble D. A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges: a guide to improving teaching methods. 4th ed. London: Kogan Page; 2000.
8. Bazargan A. [Educational Evaluation (Concepts, Models and Operational Process)].6th ed. Tehran: SAMT; 2008. [ Persian]
9. Eseryel D. Approaches to evaluation of training: theory and practice. Educational Technology & Society 2002; 5(2): 93‐8.
10. Bola HS.[ Evaluation of educational designs and plans for development]. Translated. Khodayar Abily, Tehran: International Publication Institute for Training Adults; 1995.
11. Stufflebeam D L. Evaluation Models. New Directions for Evaluation 2001:89; 7-98.
12. Worthen BR, Sanders JR. Educational Evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines, New York: Longman; 1987.
13. House ER. Assumptions underlying Evaluation models in Modaus GF, Scriven M, and Stufflebeam DL. Evaluation models: Boston: kluwer – nijhoff publishing; 1988.
14. Segerholm C. The Quality Turn: Political and Methodological Challenges in Contemporary Educational Evaluation and Assessment. Education Inquiry 2012; 3(2): 115-122.
15. Al-Kharusi H, Aldhafri S, Alnabhani, H, Alkalbani M. Educational assessment attitudes, competence, knowledge, and practices: An exploratory study of Muscat teachers in the Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Education and Learning 2012;1(2):217-232.
16. Koh KH. Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development. Teaching Education 2011; 22 (3): 255-276.
17. Fan Y, Wang T, Wang K. A web-based model for developing assessment literacy of secondary in-service teachers. Computers & Education 2011); 57:1727-1740.
18. Vassar M, Wheeler DL, Davison M, Franklin J. Program Evaluation in Medical Education: An Overview of the Utilization-focused Approach. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions 2010;7:1.
19. Stavropoulou A, Stroubouki T. Evaluation of educational programmes: The contribution of history to modern evaluation thinking. Health Science Journal 2014; 8: 193–204.
20. Yamani N, Yousefy AR, Changiz T. Proposing a participatory model of teacher evaluation. IJME 2006; 6:115–22.
21. Sepahvand MJ, Khaghanizadeh M.[Models of education evaluating in nursing].Baqiyatallah university nursing school quarterly 2013;51:47-56 .[ Persian]
22. Ghaedi Y, Dibavajari M. [ Proposing a framework for evaluation of philosophy as a course for children]. New Thoughts on Education 2012; 7(4): 35-58.[ Persian]
23. Muresan L. Quality enhancement in higher education through self-evaluation and targeted professional development .Symposium “Educational Technologies on Electronic Platforms in Engineering Higher Education” May 8- 9, 2009, Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest. Bucharest.
24. Joyes G. An evaluation model for supporting higher education lecturers in the integration of new learning technologies .Educational Technology and Society 2000; 3 (4): 56-68.
25. Clerici R, Castiglioni M, Grion V, Zago G, Da Re L. A participative approach to evaluation of graduates' professional outcomes. Universal Journal of Educational Research 2014; 2(6):454-469.
26. Könings KD, Brand-Gruwel S, Van Merriënboer JJG. An approach to participatory instructional design in secondary education: an exploratory study. Educational Research 2010.52: 45–59.
27. Chouinard JA, Cousins JB. Participatory evaluation for development: Examining research-based knowledge from within the African context. African Evaluation Journal 2013; 1(1): 1-9.
28. Changiz T, ShaterJalali M, Yamani N. [ Exploring the Faculty Members’ Expectations from Educational Development Centers in Medical Universities: A Qualitative Research]. Iranian Journal of Medical Education 2013; 12 (12):947-964.[ Persian]
29. KimpelLM.Changing faculty perceptions and perspectives: A case study at a private. [Dissertation]. Midwestern: Liberal Arts University; 2010.
30. Van de Ven P, Aggleton P. What constitutes evidence in HIV/AIDS education? Health Educ Res 1999; 14(4):461-71.
31. Komeili G, Rezaei G. [ Study of Student Evaluation by Basic Sciences` Instructors in Zahedan University of Medical Sciences in 2001]. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2002; 4:46-53. [ Persian]
32. Shirbagi N. Iranian University Teachers and Students' Views on Effectiveness of Students’ Evaluation of Teaching. Quality of Higher Education 2011; 8(8): 118 -131.
33. Lakhal S, Sévigny S, Frenette E. Personality and preference for evaluation methods: A study among business administration students. Studies in Educational Evaluation 2013; 39(2); 103-115.
34. Hossini M, Sarchami R. Attitude of students of Qazvin Medical University towards priorities in teachers' assessment. The Journal of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences 2002; 6(2):33-37. [ Persian]
35. Arab Kheradmand A, Hajaghajani S. Investigating views of Semnan University of Medical Sciences Teachers on the effect of evaluation on teaching and assessing their satisfaction from evaluation. Teb va tazkiyeh 1997; 26(3):26-30. [ Persian]
36. Scriven M. The methodology of evaluation. AERA monograph series on curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1967.
37. Dent JA, Harden RM. A practical guide for medical teachers.1st ed. Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone: 2001.
38. Youker Brandon W, Ingraham A. Goal-free evaluation: An orientation for foundations’ evaluations. The Foundation Review2013; 5(4): 53–63.
39. Youker Brandon W, Ingraham A,Bayer N. An assessment of goal-free evaluation: Case studies of four goal-free evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning 2014; 46: 10–16.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or email:

Write the security code in the box >

DOI: 10.18869/acadpub.rme.7.3.20

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Sheikhzadeh M, Nabilou B, Babaei S. Viewpoint of faculty members about educational evaluation models in Urmia University of medical sciences in 2014 . Research in Medical Education. 2015; 7 (3) :20-28
URL: http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-239-en.html
Volume 7, Number 3 (10-2015) Back to browse issues page
پژوهش در آموزش علوم پزشکی Research in Medical Education