GRM 2010 GRM 2011

Abstract Details

 
AUTHOR NAME
 
Family Name:
Alaiwah
 
First Name:
Mansour Al
 
ABSTRACT OF PAPER
 
Title of Paper:
A New BSRT Programe in Saudi Arabia: Effect Of Student Evaluations on Curricular Changes and Overall Impact on the Quality of Program
 
Paper Proposal Text :
Background: Student evaluation of a new academic program provides new important insights and feedback that may shape up the future curriculum and provides ideas on implementing new strategies . The Respiratory Care Program at King Saud Abdulaziz University health Sciences is a new program that adopted the curriculum from the Respiratory Care Program at South Alabama University (SAU). Our senior class adopted the unmodified curriculum from SAU between 2009 and 2010 and will graduate in June 2011. After completing their first year, they were asked to complete a survey evaluating the quality of the program and based on their feedback some changes have been implemented during the past academic year (2010-2011).
Objective: The primary objective of this project was to compare responses regarding the evaluation of the program quality between the junior and senior class in order to evaluate the success of implementing the changes made to the program during the last year.
Methods: We designed a 52-item comprehensive questionnaire to evaluate six different areas: management of program quality, teaching, learning resources, faculty, assessments and clinical rotations. A conventional likert scale was used to record the responses (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neutral; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree) .Twenty four (24) questionnaires (senior. n=11; juniors. n=13) were used for the descriptive analysis. A "t" test was used to compare groups and significant difference was defined as a p value < 0.05.
Results: There was a significant difference between juniors and seniors regarding their evaluation of the management of the program quality (p=0.01) and the clinical rotation (p=0.01). While the other comparisons did not reach statistical significance (learning and teaching p>0.05: learning resources p>0.55: faculty p>0.33: clinical rotation p>0.05), the mean likert scale score for the overall quality of the program improved by 10% (senior class = 3.2 vs. junior class = 3.7).
Conclusion: Although the program is at a very early stage of development, the implementation of new changes based on student feedback during the first year has resulted in significant improvement of its overall quality.
PRESENTATION TYPE: Method, device, or protocol evaluation



 
 
 

WITH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF