smartproctor.files.wordpress.com · Web view2017-04-14 · Week 7 Assignment. Neville Fernandez. Walden University. Week 3 Assignment. Neville Fernandez. Walden University. Week

Running head: WEEK 7 ASSIGNMENT 1

Week 7 Assignment

Neville Fernandez

Walden University


Week 3 Assignment

Neville Fernandez

Walden University


Week 3 Assignment

The course Microbiology and Immunology is given in the second year of medical school,

over two semesters, and includes didactic lectures, case discussions and wet laboratory sessions.

The program begins with an introduction to immunology and basic immunology, where the

students learn the structure and function of the immune system, followed by general

microbiology where the students learn about microbial structure and pathogenesis. This is

followed by an “organ system approach” that deals with individual microorganisms, their

pathogenesis, diseases caused, diagnosis and treatment.

The goals of the course include:

1. To provide the students the opportunity to learn about infectious diseases, their

etiologies, local and systemic responses and consequences of these infections and

the appropriate therapeutic agents and therapeutic measures targeted to each

disease/ disorders.

2. Provide the student an introduction to the workings of the host immune system

including its beneficial ways of orchestrating the defense mechanisms against

pathogenic invaders and harmful effects resulting in hypersensitivity.

3. Provide the students the opportunity to learn about inflammatory and

immunological disorders of the different organ systems and the appropriate

therapeutic agents and therapeutic measures targeted to each disease/ disorders.


The course is currently taught by four full time faculty. The method of instruction is

through didactic lectures, laboratory and small group sessions over two semesters. The total class

strength over two semesters varies from 300 to 400 students.

The outcomes expected – upon completion of the course, the student is expected to be

able to read a case history/vignette, determine a differential diagnosis of the disease presented,

and link the relevant microbe and its specific characteristics to the mechanism of the disease. In

the past there has been one attempt to evaluate the course with a response rate of less than ten

percent, making the data invalid and unsuitable to be used as a benchmark. The issue of poor

response rate is going to be addressed by making the survey confidential but not anonymous, and

tying the survey completion to the release of the final grade. Steps will also be taken to ensure

privacy by restricting the access of the survey backend to two persons in the Office of Academic

Outcomes.


Stakeholder list

Stakeholder Designation/Position Interests and Contextual Factors

Dr. Bharati Balachandran Course Chair Responsible for course design, delivery, and

improvement. Is interested in alignment of

objectives with course readings, lectures, lab

work and small group work, formative and

summative assessments. Is also interested in

student performance in the course on

external qualifying examinations.

Dr. Chitra Pai Professor

Dr. Karron James Assistant Professor

Dr. Neville Fernandez Professor

Dr. Robert Mallin Executive Dean Interested in student performance in the

course on internal and external qualifying

examinations. Potential impact on student

enrollment and income through tuition

through title IV loans.

Dr. Reza Sanii Dean of Student

Affairs

Interested in student attendance and

performance on the course. Attendance is

important in the learning context,

particularly among poor performers.

Attendance is also a requirement for title IV

funding and has a potential to impact

enrollment and income from tuition. Also

looks into issues related to professionalism


and discipline.

Dr. Ronnie Coutinho Dean of Academic

Affairs

Interested in the course design, delivery and

outcomes.

Dr. Juli Valtschanoff Associate Dean of

Evaluation

Interested in the formative and summative

assessments, course evaluation, and external

examinations.

Mr. Vernon Solomon VP Administrative

Services and

Community Affairs

Interested in facilities such as classrooms,

library, and student housing, that provide the

learning environment and thereby an

important context.

As seen from the table above, the stakeholders all have an interest for the program to

succeed. One of the problems with participant based evaluation is the potential for bias - biases

in assessing effectiveness of a program and biases in designing the survey to avoid being shown

in a negative light. Fetterman (2007) as cited by Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen (2010) says

that stakeholders tend to be critical of their own work as they want to use that as an opportunity

to improve, however, this has not been the case with many evaluators (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010,

p.214). The success of the program is also dependent on the students securing federal loans. This

presents a particular problem with our program as unlike US medical schools, there is no

minimum qualifying examination (Medical College Admission Test) score requirement, and

consequently, the aptitude of students getting admitted to the program is highly variable and

attrition rates are high.


References

Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2010). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches

and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Balachandran, Bharati. (2016). Disease Immunity Therapeutics [Syllabus]. St. John’s, Antigua:

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, American University of Antigua College

of Medicine.


Week 5 Assignment – Evaluation Model Table and Evaluative Criteria

Neville Fernandez

Walden University


Week 3 Assignment – Evaluation Model Table

Neville Fernandez

Walden University

Evaluation Model Advantages Disadvantages

EXPERTISE AND CONSUMER-ORIENTED APPROACHES

Consumer oriented approach: helps consumers evaluate before choosing from among a plethora of products and services available, which they otherwise would not have the time or resources to do so; increases public knowledge about criteria and standards to objectively evaluate goods and services (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen, 2010).

Expertise oriented approach relies on professional expertise to judge the quality of a product, institution or activity against a published or explicit set of standards. They encourage improvement through self-study, as is seen with accreditation processes (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010).

Consumer oriented approach: connoisseurship generates valuable perspective but abandons much of the requirement of validity (Scriven, 1991, as cited by Fitzgerald et al., 2010).

Depending on standards adopted, consumer oriented evaluation may be comprehensive as described in Scriven’s checklist (Scriven, 1974, as cited by Fitzgerald et al., 2010) or narrow as in the WWC’s focus on the evaluation of program outcomes (Fitzgerald et al., 2010).

Expertise oriented approach: personal bias affecting judgement (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010).


PROGRAM-ORIENTED EVALUATION APPROACHES

The strengths of the model include the simplicity of the model, easy to understand and deploy, and helps focus the attention on specific and key aspects of the program (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010).

Focus on objectives, and not on how they are achieved. Hence if the objectives are not met, the evaluation cannot provide remedial feedback (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010).

The focus on the objectives and their measurement may inadvertently lead to other outcomes being ignored or missed.

Oversimplification of complex program delivery and context (Pawson, 2003, as cited by Fitzpatrick et al., 2010)

DECISION-ORIENTED EVALUATION APPROACHES

Serves decision makers like administrators, managers, and policy makers, helps them take decisions based on evaluation. Helps improve decision making (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010).

A focus on decisions, potentially neglecting minor stakeholders (House and Howe, 1999, as cited by Fitzgerald et al., 2010).

Being tied to and driven by the questions or issues raised by the policy maker or manager that commissioned the evaluation, and an inability to respond to other questions or issues that may be significant in the population under study.

The process is built on the assumption that important decisions and the information to make them can be identified in advance, and the program and its context will remain stable. However, organizational environments can be quite dynamic (Patton, 2009, as cited by Fitzgerald et al., 2010).


PARTICIPANT-ORIENTED EVALUATION APPROACHES

Use all stakeholders to conduct the evaluation and hence leads to stakeholder empowerment and greater use of the results, increased organizational learning and data-based decision making.

Involving stakeholders in thinking of the phenomena to be measured, how to collect information about them or measure them, can improve data validity (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010).

Feasibility and manageability particularly in big studies

Credibility of results to non-participants who may question the objectivity of the stakeholders in designing, conducting and reporting on the evaluation of their own program. Fetterman (2007) as cited by Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen (2010) says that stakeholders tend to be critical of their own work as they want to use that as an opportunity to improve, however, this has not been the case with many evaluators (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010, p.214)

All the stakeholders may not have the competence to be good evaluators and as such competence may vary between individual stakeholders.

Explain your choice of model for your program evaluation: The evaluation approach that may work well would be a mixture of program-oriented approach and participant oriented approach. Assessment drives learning, and the nature of assessment of the core knowledge in the basic sciences has been evolving over the years. Medical school curricula strive to keep pace with the changing landscape of assessment, particularly the USMLE step examinations. Along with these changes, there has been a move to encourage more active learning among students, and with that comes less didactics and more team-based or group work involving problem solving or constructivism. The purpose of this evaluation is to establish a baseline in determining how far have the course objectives and goals being met by the current curriculum and methods of delivery. Thus a program-oriented or more specifically, and objectives oriented approach would be useful. The objectives-oriented evaluation approach was developed by Ralph Tyler. Tyler (1942) as cited by Alkin and Christie (2004), state that curricula are to be evaluated based on hypotheses: These are the best judgments of program staff as the best set of procedures for attaining program outcomes, and the purpose of the evaluation is to validate the program’s hypotheses. If we are to use this as the only model for evaluation, we would know if the objectives were being met or not, but not “how”. Coupling this model with a logic model and participant-oriented approach will help address these shortcomings,


by engaging stakeholders to learn more about the program and use their expertise to decide on data

collection and measurement, thereby improving data validity. The stakeholders are consulted in the planning stage and implementation stage. Meetings are called wherein their input on data collection sources, methods, evaluation questions and design and deployment of the survey tool are sought. After the report is generated it is communicated to the stakeholders who have been involved in the evaluation process from the beginning, and will be more likely to utilize the results.


References

Alkin, M. C., & Christie, C. A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. Evaluation roots: Tracing

theorists’ views and influences, 12-65.




Week 4 Assignment – Evaluative Criteria

Neville Fernandez

Walden University


The course Microbiology and Immunology is taught in the second year of medical

school, over two semesters. The course was evaluated once in 2011 and the response rate was

less than ten percent of the class, making it invalid. The method of curriculum delivery currently

includes didactic lectures, case discussions and wet laboratory sessions. There is a need to

evaluate if the current curriculum is meeting their goals and objectives of the course, and

establish a baseline before any changes can be made to the curriculum or method of curriculum

delivery.

Evaluation questions

1. Were the goals and objectives clearly outlined in the course syllabus? Are the

readings and course material provided consistent with the goals and objectives?

2. Are the didactic lectures aligned with the course objectives? Are the small group

exercises aligned with the course objectives? Are the laboratory exercises aligned

with the course objectives? Do the exercises promote critical thinking and analysis?

Do the teachers encourage and facilitate critical thinking in their didactic lectures?

3. Were the formative assessments aligned with the course objectives? Did the

formative assessments provide me insight into my areas of weakness in the course?

Was the feedback on the formative assessments adequate? Were the summative

assessments aligned with the course objectives?

4. Is there any part of the course that you find particularly challenging and why? What

do you think can be done to address this?


5. Is the infrastructure of the learning environment provided in the classroom,

laboratory and library satisfactory? What are the areas that need improvement?

The rationale of these questions is to determine if the program is able to meet its stated goals

and objectives (objective-oriented approach), and to study some of the contextual factors that may

impact learning. Performance data will be sourced from the standardized test reports published by the

National Board of Medical Examiners, that provide performance data on examination items

compared to USMLE step 1. This is reported as a p-value of the school, mean item difficulty on the

step 1 and the difference between the two. As the intention of this evaluation is to provide a baseline,

the difference in performance on various content areas for this course will be obtained for further

consideration.

There are contextual factors such as aptitude and personal circumstances that have not been

considered. The school does not use the standardized MCAT test as a criteria for admission of

students, and hence aptitude on medical school entry cannot be measured objectively. Personal

circumstances of individual students could be many and varied, would be beyond the scope of the

current evaluation, and would perhaps merit a separate evaluation.

In the design phase of the evaluation, the Chair and course faculty will have to get together

with the evaluator to brainstorm and finalize the evaluation questions and survey format. This will

have to be approved by the Dean of Medical Education and the Executive Dean. This is to ensure that

all stakeholders are involved in the evaluation process, so as to promote a sense of ownership,

empowerment, and greater use of the results. The faculty stakeholders are experts in their fields and


would be able to provide useful insight into data collection, thereby improving data validity

(Fitzpatrick et al., 2010).


Stakeholder list

Stakeholder Designation/Position Contribution to evaluation questions

Dr. Bharati

Balachandran

Course Chair Responsible for course design, delivery,

and improvement. Is interested in

alignment of objectives with course

readings, lectures, lab work and small

group work, formative and summative

assessments. Is also interested in student

performance in the course on external

qualifying examinations.

Dr. Chitra Pai Professor

Dr. Karron James Assistant Professor

Dr. Neville Fernandez Professor

Mr. Vernon Solomon VP Administrative

Services and

Community Affairs

Interested in adequacy of facilities such as

classrooms, library, and student housing,

that provide the learning environment.


References

Balachandran, Bharati. (2016). Disease Immunity Therapeutics [Syllabus]. St. John’s, Antigua:

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, American University of Antigua College

of Medicine.




Week 6 Assignment – Data Collection Design and Sampling Strategy

Neville Fernandez

Walden University



Week 7 Assignment – Reporting Strategy

Neville Fernandez

Walden University


Stakeholder Reporting Strategy Implications Stakeholder Involvement

Dr. Robert Mallin,

Executive Dean

1. A written report that contains an executive summary, introduction to the report, focus of the evaluation, brief overview of evaluation plans and procedures, presentation of evaluation results, conclusions and recommendations, minority reports, and appendices. The report should be printed and bound.

2. A PowerPoint presentation by the evaluator that summarizes the key points about the process and the findings. This would also provide the opportunity for the stakeholders to ask questions or seek clarification.

1. The report will provide an idea of the impact of the program on the students as well as the community/industry.

2. The report will help to gauge if the program is moving in the right direction and of there are areas that need attention.

The Chair is responsible for course design, delivery, and improvement. She is interested the alignment of objectives with course readings, lectures, lab work and small group work, formative and summative assessments. The Dean and Chair are also interested in the performance on qualifying examinations. They would have to study the report findings and decide on a course of action to address any deficiencies or challenges that are uncovered.

Dr. Bharati

Balachandran, Course

Chair

Dr. Chitra Pai,

Professor (faculty)

1. An email report that contains an executive summary, introduction to the report, focus of the evaluation, brief overview of evaluation plans and procedures, presentation of evaluation results, conclusions and recommendations, minority reports, and appendices.

2. A PowerPoint

1. The report will provide an idea of the impact of the program on the students as well as the community/industry.

2. The report will help to gauge if the program is moving in the right direction and of there are areas that need attention.

The availability of the report will give faculty the opportunity to brainstorm and come up with possible ways to address any deficiencies or challenges that are revealed.

Dr. Karron James,

Assistant Professor

(faculty)

Dr. Neville Fernandez,

Professor (faculty)


presentation by the evaluator that summarizes the key points about the process and the findings. This would also provide the opportunity for the stakeholders to ask questions or seek clarification.

Mr. Vernon Solomon,

VP Administrative

Affairs and

Community Services

An written report that contains an executive summary, introduction to the report, focus of the evaluation, brief overview of evaluation plans and procedures, presentation of evaluation results, conclusions and recommendations, minority reports, and appendices. The report should be printed and bound.

The report will enable this stakeholder to gauge the utilization and adequacy of facilities provided to students.

The report will enable the stakeholder to plan for future upgrades and expansion of facilities.

Values, Standards, and Criteria: The evaluation will look at alignment of course content with objectives, and student outcomes in internal evaluation and external evaluation. If the students report poor alignment in any part of the course this can be looked into and remedied. In terms of standards, the National Board of Medical Examiners provides a comparison of performance on examination items in the external examination with those of US Medical Schools. As the institution strives to provide an education that is at par with the USMLE step 1, this is an important metric in helping the Chair to identify areas in the course that need more attention.Potential ethical issues: The evaluator (myself) is an instructor in the course. He must be careful to introspect as to what his beliefs are and how these might impact the approach, conclusions and judgement during the evaluation process. He must also be careful not to be influenced by his department Chair, professional colleagues and Dean who may have an interest in the outcome of the evaluation going in a particular direction.

Documents

smartproctor.files.wordpress.com · Web view2017-04-14 · Week 7 Assignment. Neville Fernandez. Walden University. Week 3 Assignment. Neville Fernandez. Walden University. Week