LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Frye, Ann W.; Solomon, David J; Lieberman, Steven A.; Levine, Ruth E. (2009)
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Journal: Medical Education Online
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

ACM Ref: ComputingMilieux_COMPUTERSANDEDUCATION
Curriculum evaluation plays an important role in substantive curriculum change. The experience of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) with evaluation processes developed for the new Integrated Medical Curriculum (IMC) illustrates how evaluation methods may be chosen to match the goals of the curriculum evaluation process. Quantitative data such as ratings of courses or scores on external exams are useful for comparing courses or assessing whether standards have been met. Qualitative data such as students’ comments about aspects of courses are useful for eliciting explanations of observed phenomena and describing relationships between curriculum features and outcomes. The curriculum evaluation process designed for the IMC used both types of evaluation methods in a complementary fashion. Quantitative and qualitative methods have been used for formative evaluation of the new IMC courses. They are now being incorporated into processes to judge the IMC against its goals and objectives.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Bland CJ, Starnaman S, Wersal L, MoorheadRosenberg L, Zonia S, Henry R. Curricular change in medical schools: How to succeed. Academic Medicine 2000 June; 75(6):575-594.
    • 2. Coles CR, Grant JG. Curriculum evaluation in medical and health-care education. Medical Education 1985; 19:405-422.
    • 3. Craig P, Bandaranayake R. Experiences with a method for obtaining feedback on a medical curriculum undergoing change. Medical Education 1993; 27: 15-21.
    • 4. Stufflebeam DL, Webster WJ. An analysis of alternative approaches to evaluation. In: Madaus GF, Scriven M, Stufflebeam DL, editors. Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983;14.
    • 5. Scriven M. The nature of evaluation part I: Relation to psychology. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation [serial online]1999;6(11). Available from http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=6&n=11.
    • 6. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., 1984.
    • 7. Bernier GB, Adler S, Kanter S, Meyer W. On changing curricula: Lessons learned at two dissimilar medical schools. Academic Medicine 2000; 75:595-601.
    • 8. Guba ES, Lincoln YS. Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. In:Madaus GF, Scriven M, Stufflebeam DL, editors. Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983.
    • 9. Fetterman DM. Qualitative approaches to evaluating education. Educational Researcher 1988;17(8):17-23.
    • 10. Stufflebeam DL. The CIPP model for program evaluation. In: Madaus GF, Scriven M, Stufflebeam DL, editors. Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983.
    • 11. Stake RE. Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In: Madaus GF, Scriven M, Stufflebeam DL, editors. Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human
    • 12. Patton MQ. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1987.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from