Reza Malek Pourafshar; Reza Shojaeipour; Payam Khazaeli; Azam Bazrafshan; Amin Beigzadeh; Mahmood Reza Dehghani
Abstract
Background: Currently, many medical universities in Iran use e-learning programs to educate and evaluate students. This teaching and assessment method is highly significant during the coronavirus epidemic.Objectives: The present study was conducted to compare the analytic indices of in-person vs. online ...
Read More
Background: Currently, many medical universities in Iran use e-learning programs to educate and evaluate students. This teaching and assessment method is highly significant during the coronavirus epidemic.Objectives: The present study was conducted to compare the analytic indices of in-person vs. online exams at the Kerman University of Medical Sciences, (KUMS), Iran.Method: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in 2020. The study samples included all exams given at the KMUS and midterm exam scores obtained from in-person and online courses in the first and second semesters in the academic year 2019-2020. The exams were selected based on courses, and the same courses were offered both in-person and online; thus, only one group was studied. Course exam indicators, including difficulty and discriminative index, were examined. Data analyzed using SPSS software version 22.Results: The mean of the difficulty index related to in-person and online exams were (0.62 ± 0.1) and (0.68 ± 0.1), respectively. (P=0.01). The mean of the discriminative index related to in-person (0.30± 0.07) and online (0.33± 0.08) exams had no statistically significant difference (P˃0.05). The frequency of easy questions in online exams was significantly higher, (55% vs. 43%) (p = 0.008). The frequency of questions with an appropriate discriminative index was significantly higher for in-person exams compared to online exams (58% vs. 54%) (p = 0.01).Conclusion: The difficulty index was acceptable and appropriate for both in-person and online exams. Both exams had appropriate quality according to the discriminative index .Therefore, it seems that e-learning programs and assessments can be a good alternative to in-person teaching in emergencies.
Somaeih Mousavi; Sakineh Sabzevari; Hossein Safizadeh
Volume 12, Supplement , July 2015, , Pages 237-248
Abstract
Background & Objective: The use of an integrated and approved method in clinical evaluation is of great importance. The aim of this research was the comparison of the 360- degree and common evaluation methods in clinical skills evaluation of undergraduate surgical technology students in Kerman University ...
Read More
Background & Objective: The use of an integrated and approved method in clinical evaluation is of great importance. The aim of this research was the comparison of the 360- degree and common evaluation methods in clinical skills evaluation of undergraduate surgical technology students in Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Iran, during the operating room technical training course.
Methods: This single group interventional study was performed on 4th semester students in surgical technology at Kerman University of Medical Sciences in the operating room of Shahid Bahonar Hospital of Kerman. The data collection tool consisted of a questionnaire which was completed by 24 students and 2 lecturers.. Data were analyzed using SPSS software and paired and independent t-tests.
Results: Findings showed that mean age of students was 21.20 ± 0.56 years and most of them were females. Mean and standard deviation of total score of the common and 360-degree evaluation methods were 17.66 ± 0.86 and 17.88 ± 0.88, respectively. There was no significant differences between the mean scores of these methods (P = 0.001). Students had relative satisfaction with the 360-degree evaluation method (score = 6.12 ± 64.77) and relative dissatisfaction with the common evaluation method (score = 38.11 ± 08.49). There was a significant difference between students satisfaction with these two methods (P < 0.001). Lecturers had relative dissatisfaction with the common evaluation method (score = 47.51 ± 6.64) and complete satisfaction with the 360-degree evaluation method (score = 85.98 ± 9.84).
Conclusion: The students’ 360-degree evaluation score was similar to that obtained through their evaluation by lecturers. Considering students’ relative satisfaction and lecturers’ total satisfaction with the 360-degree method, in comparison to their relative dissatisfaction with the common method, it seems that using this method can be effective in the modification of their dissatisfaction with the current clinical evaluation method.
Abbas Abbaszadeh; Fariba Borhani; Sakineh Sabzevari; Zohre Eftekhari
Volume 10, Issue 2 , August 2013, , Pages 260-270
Abstract
Background & Objective: There are two basic learning approaches in academic education deep and surface If educational assessment is designed based on deep understanding it will lead to deep learning This study aimed to investigate conventional methods of assessment in medical surgical courses ...
Read More
Background & Objective: There are two basic learning approaches in academic education deep and surface If educational assessment is designed based on deep understanding it will lead to deep learning This study aimed to investigate conventional methods of assessment in medical surgical courses and its relationship with learning approaches in nursing students of Kerman University of Medical Sciences Iran in 2010 Methods: This is a descriptive analytic study A questionnaire consisting of three sections including personal characteristics assessment methods and the revised twofactor study process questionnaire (RSPQ2F) was completed by 198 nursing students Data were analyzed using SPSS and by means standard deviation frequency Students ttest ANOVA Pearson correlation and Rho Results: The most used assessment methods were multiple choice question (MCQ) and Direct Observation Procedural Skills (DOPS) The mean score of deep learning approach was 3427 ± 5006 and of surface learning approach was 3121 ± 552 Regarding the relationship between learning approaches and assessment methods results showed a significant difference (P < 005) MCQ and DOPS alone resulted in the surface approach but a combination of tests and projects in written and DOPS tests lead to deep learning approach in clinical tests (P < 005) Conclusion: Using MCQ and DOPS without concentration on reflection and problem solving lead to surface approach As common assessment methods in this study led to surface approach using projects in written and clinical assessment for deep approach lifelong learning and student empowerment for their future responsibilities is suggested