Fitting the Means to the Ends: One School’s Experience with Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Curriculum Evaluation During Curriculum Change1

Article English OPEN
Frye, Ann W. ; Solomon, David J ; Lieberman, Steven A. ; Levine, Ruth E. (2009)
  • Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
  • Journal: Medical Education Online (issn: 1087-2981, eissn: 1087-2981)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.3402/meo.v5i.4316
  • Subject:
    acm: 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.
  • References (12)
    12 references, page 1 of 2

    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.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark