Evaluation of Medical Humanities Course in College of Medicine Using the Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluation Model
10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e163
- Author:
So Young LEE
1
;
Seung Hee LEE
;
Jwa Seop SHIN
Author Information
1. Department of Medical Education, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. lshcho@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
CIPP Evaluation Model;
Educational Evaluation
- MeSH:
Classification;
Curriculum;
Evaluation Studies as Topic;
Humanities;
Humans;
Seoul;
Students, Medical;
Teaching Materials
- From:Journal of Korean Medical Science
2019;34(22):e163-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Seoul National University College of Medicine has provided a new educational curriculum on basis of the competency-based curriculum since 2016. The new curriculum included the medical humanities course (MHC) to potentiate humanities of medical students. The present study applied the context, input, process and product (CIPP) evaluation model to the MHC in order to confirm the feasibility of the CIPP model and to improve the MHC by questionnaire survey and analysis of teaching materials. METHODS: This study analyzed the MHC provided to the freshmen in 2016 and to the freshmen and sophomores in 2017 by the CIPP model. Firstly, evaluation criteria and indicators were developed according to the CIPP classification. The materials collected from the course were analyzed by quantitative and qualitative analysis according to the evaluation criteria. In the quantitative analysis, an independent sample t-test was performed to verify the difference in the responses between the students (n = 522) and the professors (n = 22). In addition, content analysis was conducted for qualitative evaluation. RESULTS: There were significant differences in perceptions of MHC between students and professors about the results of almost all objective survey questions through the t-test, such as score 3.64 in students and 4.48 in professors in response to the item of ‘provision of appropriate feedback.’ As a result of the content analysis, 7 categories and 20 subcategories were derived. There were the most responses to various instructional methods (students, 20%; professors, 21.5%). CONCLUSION: The CIPP evaluation model was acceptable for the MHC analysis. The first task is to raise students' awareness of the MHC in order to improve the MHC quality.
