medigraphic.com
Órgano de Difusión de la Asociación Académica Panamericana de Medicina Familiar A.C.

2011, Number 3

Next >>

Arch Med Fam 2011; 13 (3)

Performance Assessment in Undergraduate Teaching: Implementation of Three Strategies

Martínez-González A, Fortoul VT, Urrutia AME

Language: Spanish
References: 37
Page: 101-110
PDF size: 279.26 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the performance by three strategies for teachers of undergraduate teaching, likewise compare the results of the strategies implemented. Material and Methods: A longitudinal, comparative and paired, which considered three strategies for teaching evaluation in different phases. Teacher evaluation and opinion of students, teacher evaluation of self-evaluation, teacher evaluation by differences in the multiple-choice exams average percentage of correct admission vs discharge (PPAI vs. PPAE for their name in Spanish). Including 16 professors were the subject of Cell and Tissue Biology professor who taught medical students at 463 generation 2005-2006. Results: The integration of the three assessments provide a more complete picture of the teacher by not only the views of students or self-assessment, but also the student body of knowledge acquired in the interaction with the teacher, which is reflected in a higher percentage of hits in the course evaluations at discharge analyzed. Conclusions: The integration of the three Strategies the Gave us a more complete picture of the quality of teacher performance. Apparently the strategy Percentage of correct answers average is more Objective Compared to the other two. The good teacher is a role model, because can change the future of their students. The Importance of the teacher requires us to developer tools and strategies to evaluate objectively and comprehensively.


REFERENCES

  1. De la Fuente JR, Piña-Garza E, Gutiérrez-Ávila JH. La formación del médico del siglo XXI y el Plan Único de Estudios de la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Educación Médica y Salud 1994; 28:331-40.

  2. Informe de labores 2008 de la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Consultado el 28 de abril de 2009 en http://www.facmed.unam.mx/marco/index.php?dir_ver=84

  3. Stufflebeam D, Shinkfield. Evaluación sistemática. Barcelona, España: Paidós; 1993.

  4. Valle RM, Alaminos I, Contreras E, Salas LE, Tomasini P, Varela M. Student questionnaire to evaluate basic medical science teaching (METEQ-B). Rev Med IMSS 2004;42(5):405-411.

  5. Lancaster CJ, Ross GR, Smith IK. Survey of Practices in Evaluating Teaching in U.S. Medical Schools, 1978 and 1986. Journal of Medical Education 1988;63:913-914.

  6. Luna E, Torquemada A. Los cuestionarios de evaluación de la docencia por los alumnos: balance y perspectivas de su agenda. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 2008 Especial. Consultado el 15 de marzo de 2009, en: http://redie.uabc.mx/NumEsp1/contenido- lunatorquemada.html

  7. Slotnick BH, Rusell G, Durkovich G. Dimensions of medical students' perceptions of instruction, Journal of Medical Education,1975;50:662- 666.

  8. Fallon MS, Croen GL, Shelov PS. Teachers´and students ratings of clinical teaching and teachers´ opinions on use of student evaluations. Journal of Medical Education 1987;62:435-438.

  9. Mullan BP, Wolf FM, Ertel KI. Residents' evaluation of behavioral pediatrics instruction. Med Educ 1989;23:447-452.

  10. King RG, Paget NS, Ingvarson LC. An interdisciplinary course unit in basic pharmacology and neuroscience. Med Educ 1993;27:229-237.

  11. Finucare P, Allery LA, Hayes TM. Comparison of teachers at a 'traditional' and ‘innovative’ medical school. Med Educ 1995;29:104-109.

  12. Marsh, H. W. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. Int Journal Educational Research 1987;11:253-388.

  13. Marsh WH, Roche AL. Making Students' Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness Effective. The Critical Issues of Validity, Bias, and Utility. American Psychologist 1997;52(11):1187-1197.

  14. Solabarrieta J. Modelos de evaluación del profesor, En Tejedor, F. J. y Rodríguez Diéguez, J. L. (Eds.), Evaluación Educativa II. Evaluación Institucional. Fundamentos teóricos y aplicaciones prácticas. Documentos didácticos 157, Salamanca: IUCE. Universidad de Salamanca 1996.

  15. Rippey RM. The evaluation of teaching in medical schools. Springer Publishing Company 1981.

  16. Urrutia ME, Barojas J, Torres JR, Ponce R, Martínez A. Predictores de autoevaluación del desempeño docente en ciencias de la salud. Educación en Ciencias de la Salud, 2008;5 (2):27-36.

  17. Rodríguez R, Martínez-González, A., Téllez, V. C., Díaz-Martínez, A y Santana, C (1990). Nivel de Conocimientos de los Alumnos de Primer Ingreso a la Facultad de Medicina de la UNAM. Gac Méd Méx 1990;126 (5):449-453.

  18. Rodríguez R, Martínez A, Ponce R, Contreras E, Colina C, Cerritos A. Una nueva estrategia para evaluar la calidad del desempeño docente en las instituciones de educación superior. Revista de Educación Superior, ANUIES 2000;129-141.

  19. Martínez-González A, Gil-Miguel A, Rey-Calero J, Rodríguez-Carranza R. Nivel académico de los alumnos del Programa de Medicina General Integral (Plan A-36) y su comparación con los alumnos del Plan de Estudios 85. I. Una nueva estrategia para evaluar la calidad del proceso educativo. Rev Fac Med UNAM 1997;40(6): 222-29.

  20. UNAM. Secretaría de Educación Médica, Facultad de Medicina 2008.

  21. Irby DM, Gillmore GM, Ramsey PG. Factors affecting ratings of clinical teachers by medical students and residents, Journal of Medical Education 1987; 62:1-7.

  22. Irby DM. Evaluating instruction in medical education, Jounal of Medical Education 1983;58:844-849.

  23. Fernández JA. Spanish evaluation model in higher education: Circular evaluation. Higher Education Management 1997;9:71-84.

  24. Johnson NR, Chen J. Medical student evaluation of teaching quality between obstetrics and gynecology residents and faculty as clinical preceptors in ambulatory gynecology. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;195:1479–83.

  25. Howard S, Conway G, Maxwell E. Construct validity of measures of college teaching effectiveness, Journal of Education Psychology 1985;77(2):187-196.

  26. Kremer F. Construct validity of multiple measures in teaching, research, and service and reliability of peer ratings, Journal of Educational Psychology 1990;82(2):213-218.

  27. Elizalde L, Reyes R. (2008). Elementos clave para la evaluación del desempeño de los docentes. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, Especial. Consultado el 10 de febrero de 2009, en: http://redie.uabc.mx/NumEsp1/contenido-elizaldereyes.

  28. Das M, El F, Bener A. Student and faculty perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal teacher in a classroom setting. Medical Teacher 1996; 8:141-146.

  29. Martínez A, Lifshitz G, Ponce R, Aguilar V. Evaluación del desempeño docente en cursos de especialización médica. Revista Médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 2008;46 (4):375-382.

  30. Wolf FM, Turner EV. Congruence between student and instructor perceptions of clinical teaching in pediatrics. Med Educ 1989;23:161-167.

  31. Centra, JA. The Student Instructional Report:Its development and uses. Educational Testing Service. Princeton, New Jersey,1973.

  32. Rueda M. La evaluación del desempeño docente en la universidad. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 2008 Especial. Consultado el 10 de febrero de 2009, en: http://redie.uabc.mx/NumEsp1/contenido-rueda.html

  33. Anderson, J. For multiple choice questions. Med Teach 1979;1.

  34. Anderson, J. Multiple choice questions revisited. Med Teach 2004;26.

  35. Collins, J. P. Educational techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules. Radiographics 2006;26.

  36. McCoubrie,P. Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review. Med Teach 2004:26.

  37. Pan DS, Tan GS, Ragupathi K, Booluck K, Roop R, Ip YK. Profiling Teacher/Teaching Using Descriptors Derived from Qualitative Feedback: Formative and Summative Applications. Res Higher Educ 2009;50:73-100.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com