Suppr超能文献

巴基斯坦木尔坦市计算机与信息技术学院教师反馈项目评估

Faculty Feedback Program Evaluation in CIMS Multan, Pakistan.

作者信息

Shabbir Ambreen, Raja Hina, Qadri Anjum A, Qadri Muhammad Hisaan Anjum

机构信息

Pathology, Combined Military Hospital (CMH) Institute of Medical Sciences, Multan, PAK.

Prosthodontics, CMH Lahore Medical College and Institute of Dentistry, Lahore, PAK.

出版信息

Cureus. 2020 Jun 14;12(6):e8612. doi: 10.7759/cureus.8612.

Abstract

Faculty feedback program (FFP) at CMH Multan Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) was conducted for obtaining feedback for basic medical sciences faculty and evaluated to highlight its weaknesses for future improvement. The evaluation design was utilization-focused evaluation (UFE) keeping in mind its two essential elements. First element is the primary intended users (PIU) of the evaluation, namely the college faculty and students which were clearly identified and personally engaged to investigate intended use of the evaluation. Second element required the evaluator to ensure that the intended use of evaluation by PIU guide all other decisions made about the evaluation process. It was a mixed method study (qualitative and quantitative methods both) conducted from August 2018 to August 2019 in CIMS Multan with IRB approval following the steps of UFE. The whole program evaluation was conducted in two parts - first part constituted the 2018 manual FFP evaluation that provided suggestions for a FFP conducted in 2019 online. In step 2 the 2019 online FFP was evaluated again forming basis for future recommendations. Hence the PIUs response was recorded twice in the evaluation cycle - initially after the manual 2018 basic science FFP (response rate: 53%) - after which based on our findings a report was generated and recommendations suggested which were implemented in the 2019 online FFP and response observed again (response rate: 85.7%) to complete the evaluation cycle. Open-end questions were asked from faculty (qualitative analysis) with three themes emerging regarding FFP procedure, questionnaire and timing. An acknowledgement of shift of FFP procedure from manual (2018) to online system (2019) was observed in which faculty praised the ease (72.2%), confidentiality (66.6%), anonymity (50%) and transparency (33.3%) of the online system compared to manual FFP, which was reported to be a rather tense experience (83%). Regarding questionnaire, 38% faculty members reported feedback questions asked from students to be vague and 66.6% claimed that the timing was inappropriate and should have been end of academic year. When asked for suggestions for improvement in 2018 FFP, 72% faculty suggested training students on providing feedback and making the procedure user friendly (83%). Student response regarding both feedback was obtained online by a survey with closed ended questions (quantitative study). Fifty-three percent college students were satisfied with the online FFP giving an average rating of 3.2 to the software user interface and 85% affirmed that using the online software aided in providing anonymous responses helping them provide candid feedback. Seventy-five percent students agreed that online feedback system in 2019 had streamlined the feedback process and made it more efficient compared to the paper-based manual survey of 2018. After evaluating 2019 online FFP, few suggestions were recommended for future FFP including obtaining formative as well as summative faculty feedback, supplementing feedback with teacher's self-assessment/pen picture and incorporating 360 multi-source feedback.

摘要

在木尔坦市CMH医学科学研究所(CIMS)开展了教师反馈计划(FFP),旨在收集基础医学教师的反馈意见,并对其进行评估以找出不足之处,为未来改进提供参考。评估设计采用以利用为重点的评估(UFE),并牢记其两个关键要素。第一个要素是评估的主要预期用户(PIU),即学院教师和学生,明确确定并亲自参与调查评估的预期用途。第二个要素要求评估者确保PIU对评估的预期用途指导有关评估过程的所有其他决策。这是一项混合方法研究(定性和定量方法结合),于2018年8月至2019年8月在木尔坦市CIMS进行,经机构审查委员会(IRB)批准,遵循UFE的步骤。整个项目评估分两部分进行——第一部分是2018年的手动FFP评估,为2019年的在线FFP提供建议。在第二步中,对2019年的在线FFP再次进行评估,为未来的建议奠定基础。因此,PIU的反馈在评估周期中记录了两次——最初是在2018年手动基础科学FFP之后(回复率:53%)——之后根据我们的调查结果生成一份报告并提出建议,这些建议在2019年的在线FFP中得到实施,并再次观察回复情况(回复率:85.7%)以完成评估周期。向教师提出了开放式问题(定性分析),出现了关于FFP程序、问卷和时间安排的三个主题。观察到FFP程序从手动(2018年)转变为在线系统(2019年),与手动FFP相比,教师们称赞在线系统的便捷性(72.2%)、保密性(66.6%)、匿名性(50%)和透明度(33.3%),而手动FFP据报道是一种相当紧张的体验(83%)。关于问卷,38%的教师表示向学生提出的反馈问题模糊,66.6%的教师声称时间安排不合适,应该在学年结束时进行。当被问及2018年FFP的改进建议时,72%的教师建议对学生进行提供反馈的培训,并使程序更便于用户使用(占83%)。通过一项封闭式问题调查在线获取了学生对两种反馈的回复(定量研究)。53%的大学生对在线FFP感到满意,对软件用户界面的平均评分为3.2,85%的学生确认使用在线软件有助于提供匿名回复,帮助他们提供坦率的反馈。75%的学生同意2019年的在线反馈系统简化了反馈过程,与2018年基于纸质的手动调查相比效率更高。在对2019年的在线FFP进行评估后,为未来的FFP提出了一些建议,包括获取形成性和总结性的教师反馈、用教师的自我评估/个人简介补充反馈以及纳入360度多源反馈。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

1
Faculty development program evaluation: a need to embrace complexity.教师发展项目评估:需要接受复杂性。
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019 Apr 16;10:191-199. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S188164. eCollection 2019.
3
Program & faculty evaluation.项目与教员评估
Ann Eye Sci. 2017 Jul;2. doi: 10.21037/aes.2017.06.02. Epub 2017 Jul 4.
8
Communicating Your Program's Goals and Objectives.传达你的项目目标与目的。
J Grad Med Educ. 2011 Dec;3(4):574-6. doi: 10.4300/JGME-03-04-31.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验