Rethinking programme evaluation in health professions education: beyond 'did it work?'

被引:123
作者
Haji, Faizal [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Morin, Marie-Paule [2 ,4 ]
Parker, Kathryn [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Wilson Ctr, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Hosp Sick Children, SickKids Learning Inst, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
[3] London Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Clin Neurol Sci, London, ON, Canada
[4] Ctr Hosp Univ CHU, Univ Hosp Ctr, St Justine Hosp, Div Immunol & Rheumatol,Dept Paediat, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[5] Holland Bloorview Childrens Rehabil Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
LEARNING CURRICULA; FRAMEWORK; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1111/medu.12091
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Context For nearly 40years, outcome-based models have dominated programme evaluation in health professions education. However, there is increasing recognition that these models cannot address the complexities of the health professions context and studies employing alternative evaluation approaches that are appearing in the literature. A similar paradigm shift occurred over 50years ago in the broader discipline of programme evaluation. Understanding the development of contemporary paradigms within this field provides important insights to support the evolution of programme evaluation in the health professions. Methods In this discussion paper, we review the historical roots of programme evaluation as a discipline, demonstrating parallels with the dominant approach to evaluation in the health professions. In tracing the evolution of contemporary paradigms within this field, we demonstrate how their aim is not only to judge a programme's merit or worth, but also to generate information for curriculum designers seeking to adapt programmes to evolving contexts, and researchers seeking to generate knowledge to inform the work of others. Discussion From this evolution, we distil seven essential elements of educational programmes that should be evaluated to achieve the stated goals. Our formulation is not a prescriptive method for conducting programme evaluation; rather, we use these elements as a guide for the development of a holistic programme of evaluation' that involves multiple stakeholders, uses a combination of available models and methods, and occurs throughout the life of a programme. Thus, these elements provide a roadmap for the programme evaluation process, which allows evaluators to move beyond asking whether a programme worked, to establishing how it worked, why it worked and what else happened. By engaging in this process, evaluators will generate a sound understanding of the relationships among programmes, the contexts in which they operate, and the outcomes that result from them.
引用
收藏
页码:342 / 351
页数:10
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [1] Evaluation of Saudi family medicine training program: The application of CIPP evaluation format
    Al-Khathami, Abdullah Dukhail
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2012, 34 : S81 - S89
  • [2] Alkin Marvin C, 2004, Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists' Views and Influences, V2, P12, DOI [10.1016/j.stueduc.2008.07.001, 10.4135/9781412984157.]
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1997, New Directions for Evaluation, DOI [DOI 10.1002/EV.1086, 10.1002/ev.1086]
  • [4] [Anonymous], EVALUATING ARTS ED R
  • [5] Barr H., 2000, Evaluations of Inter-professional Education: A United Kingdom Revieti' for Health and Social Care
  • [6] Measuring effectiveness for best evidence medical education: a discussion
    Belfield, C
    Thomas, H
    Bullock, A
    Eynon, R
    Wall, D
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2001, 23 (02) : 164 - 170
  • [7] Campbell D., 1963, Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research, P13
  • [8] EVALUATING WITH SENSE - THE THEORY-DRIVEN APPROACH
    CHEN, HT
    ROSSI, PH
    [J]. EVALUATION REVIEW, 1983, 7 (03) : 283 - 302
  • [9] Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory
    Colliver, JA
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2000, 75 (03) : 259 - 266
  • [10] Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education
    Cook, David A.
    Bordage, Georges
    Schmidt, Henk G.
    [J]. MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2008, 42 (02) : 128 - 133