ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Descriptive & Survey Study

Authors

Mirzaei   A.R. (1)
Kawarizadeh   F. (1)
Lohrabian   V. (*)
Yegane   Z. (1)






(*) Medical Physics Department, Medicine Faculty, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
(1) Medical Education Development Center, Medical Education Development Center, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
(1) Medical Education Development Center, Medical Education Development Center, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
(1) Medical Education Development Center, Medical Education Development Center, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Medical Education Development Center, Educational Deputy of Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Banganjab, Pajohesh Blvd., Ilam, Iran. Postal Code: 69391-77143.
Phone: +98843223083
Fax: +98843223083
vahidlohrabian@yahoo.com

Article History

Received:  January  10, 2015
Accepted:  June 2, 2015
ePublished:  June 6, 2015

BRIEF TEXT


… [1-5] The current methods of evaluation of the educational achievements in the universities chronologically include final test, midterm test, and current assessment. And based on the implementation methods, they include writing test, oral test, open-answer test, short answer test, multi-choice test, true/false test, matching test, direct observation test, OSCE, portfolio-based method, work sample based method, 360°, etc. [6-14].

Despite low skill to design multi-choice questions, the teachers emphasize the method to assess the students in the universities, while the students are unsatisfied by the current evaluation methods for some courses in the universities [15].

The aim of this study was to evaluate the situation of the implementation of different types of the tests (evaluation methods) for educational achievements in the teachers of Ilam University of Medical Sciences.

This is a descriptive cross-sectional study.

The faculty members of Ilam University of Medical Sciences (Iran) were studied in the 2nd semester of 2013-14.

90 faculty members were selected via total counting.

The inclusion criterion was the participant’s consent to complete the questionnaire. The exclusion criterion was no respond to two or more questions. Data was collected, using a 29-question researcher-made questionnaire. There were 5 demographic questions and 24 questions about the participants’ viewpoints about the educational achievement tests based on the Likert’s 5-scale scoring from “low” to “very high”. Its validity was confirmed by the experts of education and some experienced teachers. Through a pilot on 10 faculty members, its reliability was confirmed via Cronbach’s Alpha. Data was analyzed, using SPSS 16 software, Descriptive Statistics Indices (frequency, percent, and statistical mean), and Inferential Statistics (Student T test and One-way ANOVA).

There were totally 81 participants. 56 persons (69.1%) and 25 persons (30.9%) were male and female, respectively. 9 persons (11.1%), 42 persons (51.8%), and 30 persons (37.2%) aged less than 30years, between 30years and 40years, and 41years and more, respectively. 20 persons (24.7%), 58 persons (71.6%), and 3 persons (3.7%) were instructor, assistant professor, and associate professor, respectively. 38 persons (46.9%), 14 persons (17.3%), 13 persons (16%), 11 persons (13.6%), and 5 persons (6.2%) were from Medical, Health, Nursing and Midwifery, Paramedical, and Dentistry Faculties, respectively. In succession, final test (93.8%), midterm test (85.2%), and current test (61.7%) were emphasized by the faculty members (Table 1). The test methods highly utilized were multi-choice test, regular presence in the sessions, and active presence in the sessions (86.4%). The test methods less utilized were the new assessment methods of educational achievements, such as 360° test (4.9%) and OSCE (19.8%), (Table 2). Dentistry, Medical, Health, Nursing and Midwifery, and Paramedical Faculties received the highest mean total scores, respectively. There was no significant difference between the results in gender and university ranking based on a comparison between the mean differences.

Final test (93.8%), midterm test (85.2%), and current test (61.7%) were successively emphasized by the participants. The final test is the most important scale to assess the students [12]. The result is consistent with the present result. The final test is mainly emphasized by the faculty members in the assessment of the students [9]. The final test contribution to the assessment of the students is 100% [16], which is close to the present result (93.8%). Multi-choice questions, active presence in the sessions, essay -short answer questions, and essay -multi choice questions were successively highly used, while 360° test, OSCE, logbook, and role playing method were successively less used. Multi-choice questions and essay test are highly used [10]. The result is consistent with the present results. A multi-choice question is the most prevalent assessment method [9, 11]. Multi-choice test is the most prevalent assessment method and essay method and short-answer test are in succession, while the less used methods, especially in the practical courses, are matching, blank, and true/false questions [16]. In the clinical environments, the most prevalent method is multi-choice question (97.6%) and methods such as 360° (8.4%) and portfolio (6%) are less used, while OSCE test has been used by 92.8% of the teachers [17]. There was a significant difference between the mean scores of the faculty members of different faculties, and comparison between the mean scores of each question showed the difference. Regarding the type of the course, the teachers use different questions. In addition, type of the tests is different in different faculties [18]. The most important assessment scales are final test, active presence in the sessions, and recorded presence in the sessions [10], which is a result consistent with the present results. In Paramedical Faculty of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 85% of the final score of the student is computed from the final test, and multi-choice question method is the most prevalent method for question designing [16]. The results are consistent with the present results of Paramedical Faculty. As shown by the present study, despite different methods of educational progress assessment, the most prevalent assessment method is multi-choice questions and the final test is emphasized by most teachers [9, 14, 17-20]. The utilization of other assessment methods (current, midterm, composed, 360°, OSCE, portfolio-based, etc.) is considered important and proper. In addition, many teachers are not skilled in designing multi-choice questions [9, 20-28].

Teachers’ awareness about the assessment of educational progress should be enhanced through conducting some related courses. In addition, proper standards should be determined as nation-wide.

Any generalization should be done by care, due to small sample size.

Considering the faculty members’ emphases on the utilization of the final assessment results, preferred easy and current methods, and low diversity of the assessment methods of educational progress of the students, it is required to apply new assessment methods for educational progress and conduct proper training courses for the teachers.

Research Council of Research Deputy of Ilam University of Medical Sciences and all the participants are appreciated.

There is no conflict of interest.

Ethics Committee of Research Deputy of Ilam University of Medical Sciences confirmed the study.

The study was funded by Research Deputy of Ilam University of Medical Sciences.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Ghafourian Boroujerdnia M, Shakurnia AH, Elhampour H. The opinions of academic members of Ahvaz University of Medical Sciences about the effective factors on their evaluation score variations. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2006;3(1):19-25. [Persian]
[2]Hamidzadeh B. Introduction to measurement and evaluation of academic achievement. Morabbian J. 2002;4:146-64. [Persian]
[3]Shahrabadi A, Rezaeian M, Haghdoost A. Prediction of academic achievement evaluation in university of medical sciences, based on the students' course experience. J Stride Dev Med Educ. 2013;10(4):485-93. [Persian]
[4]Amaechi CI, Ifeyinwa EO. The role of measurement and evaluation in national development. J Integr Know. 2014;3(1):173-84.
[5]Abe TO, Isanbor PO. Philosophical notation of ethics for educational measurement and evaluation. Res J Bus Ethics. 2013;1(1):1-9.
[6]Delaram M. A Comparison of student’s performances in multiple- choice and essay questions in mother and child Health examination. J Med Educ Dev. 2014;7(14):31-7. [Persian]
[7]Khademi Zare H, Fakhrzad MB. Integration of collaborative management and fuzzy systems for evaluating of students’ educational performance. J Res Plann High Educ. 2013;69:23-40. [Persian]
[8]Haghani N. Analysis of the learning progress tests based on electronic tests in Passwort Deutsch. J Res Foreign Lang. 2006;33:37-48. [Persian]
[9]Mesrabady J. Introduce and accreditation of concept map evaluation in learning progress and academic performance evaluation. J Educ Innov. 2011;10(38)7-24. [Persian]
[10]Komeili G, Rezaei G. Study of student evaluation by basic sciences` instructors in Zahedan University of medical sciences in 2001. Iran J Med Edu. 2002;2(8):36. [Persian]
[11]Mousavi M, Maghami H. Comparison of new and old educational evaluation methods' efficacy on student's attitudes to innovation and academic achievement in elementary schools students. Inven Creat Hum J. 2012;2(6):125-46. [Persian]
[12]Delaram M. Evaluation of Students by Faculty Members and Educational Staff at Shahr-e-Kord University of Medical Sciences in 2007-2008. J Med Educ Dev. 2008;2(2):9-15. [Persian]
[13]Seif A. Educational measurement, assessment, and evaluation. Tehran: Doran Publication; 2008. pp. 125-200. [Persian]
[14]Dandis MA. The assessment methods that are used in a secondary mathematics class. J Educ Teach Train. 2013;4(2):133-43.
[15]Mozafari M. Evaluation of an educational experience: Nursing student's viewpoints about the new course of nursing ethics and professional regulation in Ilam medical university. Iran J Med Hist. 2010;3(8):173-90. [Persian]
[16]Abbasi S, Einollahi N, Gharib M, Nabatchian F, Dashti N, Zarebavani M. Evaluation methods of theoretical and practical courses of paramedical faculty laboratory sciences undergraduate students at Tehran University Of Medical Sciences in the academic year 2009-2010. Payavard-e-Salamat. 2012;6(5):342-53. [Persian]
[17]Kouhpayezadeh J, Dargahi H, Soltani Arabshahi K. Clinical assessment methods in Medical Sciences Universities of Tehran: Clinical instructors’ viewpoint. J Hormozgan Univ Med Sci. 2011;16(5):395-402. [Persian]
[18]Sepasi H, Attari YA. The study of psychometric characteristics of Shahid Chamran University Faculty members final test scores. J Edu Psy Sci .2006;12(4):1-20. [Persian]
[19]Ashraf Pour M, Beheshti Z, Molook Zadeh S. Quality of final examination in students of Babol Medical University 1999-2000. J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2003;5(2):42-7. [Persian]
[20]Meaiari A, Beiglar Khani M. Improving the quality of multiple-choice questions designed to Upgrade Assistant by giving feedback. Stride Dev Med Educ. 2012;10(1):109-18. [Persian]
[21]Resaeian N, Nakhaei S, Sadegh N. Comparison of three exam techniques in medical students: Multi ple- choice, true- false and short answer question. Hakim. 2002;5(4):271-80. [Persian]
[22]Dawn Marie W. Classroom assessment techniques: An assessment and student evaluation method. J Creat Educ. 2012;3:903-7.
[23]Olde Bekkink M, Donders R, van Muijen GN, Ruiter DJ. Challenging medical students with an interim assessment: A positive effect on formal examination score in a randomized controlled study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17(1):27-37.
[24]Yanying Xu. Principles of constructing multiple-choice in reading comprehension of cet-4 and their enlightening to general college English teaching. Int J Eng Ling. 2011;1(1):219-22.
[25]Soleimani Asl H, Mehran Nia K. A survey of student viewpoints about the checking of present and absence of them and reasons for absence from class in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2002;2(1):50. [Persian]
[26]Simkin MG, Kuechler WL. Multiple-choice test and students understanding: What is the connection?. Decis Sci J Innov Educ. 2005;3(1):73-97.
[27]Molahadi M. Evaluating by multichoice tests. Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2010;2(4):177-82. [Persian]
[28]Atif Eid A. Types of achievement tests which are preferred by outstanding students at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University. J Educ Prac. 2012;3(13):149-55.