Gerrity M S, Mahaffy J
Department of Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland 97201, USA.
Acad Med. 1998 Sep;73(9 Suppl):S55-9. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199809001-00010.
This chapter compares and contrasts the primary outcomes and methods used to evaluate the curricular changes at the eight schools participating in The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation "Preparing Physicians for the Future: Program in Medical Education." Each school evaluated its own program. The eight evaluators formed an ad hoc group to share information, but the schools did not use a common evaluation system. Although the evaluations were done without common standards, many of the measures were similar. The schools used such quantitative methods as measuring students' performances and their choices of specialties, as well as such qualitative methods as asking students to evaluate their courses and to participate in focus groups. The authors describe the ways in which evaluative data were collected and how evaluation drove curricular change. The authors conclude that program evaluation can sustain schools through the turbulence of curricular change, and that qualitative data and communicating the results of evaluations with faculty and students are essential to successful reform.
本章比较并对比了参与罗伯特·伍德·约翰逊基金会“为未来培养医生：医学教育项目”的八所学校评估课程变化所采用的主要成果和方法。每所学校都对自己的项目进行了评估。八位评估人员组成了一个特别小组来分享信息，但这些学校并未使用统一的评估系统。尽管评估是在没有共同标准的情况下进行的，但许多衡量标准是相似的。这些学校采用了诸如衡量学生表现及其专业选择等定量方法，以及诸如要求学生评估课程并参与焦点小组等定性方法。作者描述了收集评估数据的方式以及评估如何推动课程变革。作者得出结论，项目评估可以帮助学校在课程变革的动荡时期维持下去，并且定性数据以及与教师和学生交流评估结果对于成功改革至关重要。
