Cogprints

Fitting the Means to the Ends: One School’s Experience with Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Curriculum Evaluation During Curriculum Change

Frye PhD, Ann W. and Solomon PhD, David J. and Lieberman MD, Steven A. and Levine MD, Ruth E. (2000) Fitting the Means to the Ends: One School’s Experience with Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Curriculum Evaluation During Curriculum Change. [Journal (On-line/Unpaginated)]

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
 PDF
59Kb

Abstract

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.

Item Type:Journal (On-line/Unpaginated)
Keywords:medical education; evaluation; curriculum; health professional education
Subjects:JOURNALS > Medical Education Online > MEO Peer Reviewed
ID Code:2425
Deposited By: David, Solomon
Deposited On:27 Aug 2002
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:54

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

1. Bland CJ, Starnaman S, Wersal L, Moorhead-Rosenberg 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 services evaluation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983.

12. Patton MQ. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1987.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.