Cargando…

Curriculum Evaluation of Physiology subject of medical undergraduate using ‘FIPO model’

BACKGROUND: After the formal process of developing/revising and implementing the curriculum, the need arises for its ‘Evaluation’. A plan of evaluation is an integral part of the process of curriculum development, which ultimately yields an evaluation report, giving us the directives for the curricu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Choudhari, Sonali, Rawekar, Alka, Mishra, Vedprakash, Srivastava, Tripti, Vagha, Sunita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7567280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33102318
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_175_20
_version_ 1783596294544031744
author Choudhari, Sonali
Rawekar, Alka
Mishra, Vedprakash
Srivastava, Tripti
Vagha, Sunita
author_facet Choudhari, Sonali
Rawekar, Alka
Mishra, Vedprakash
Srivastava, Tripti
Vagha, Sunita
author_sort Choudhari, Sonali
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: After the formal process of developing/revising and implementing the curriculum, the need arises for its ‘Evaluation’. A plan of evaluation is an integral part of the process of curriculum development, which ultimately yields an evaluation report, giving us the directives for the curriculum reforms in the future. ‘Curriculum Evaluation’ is one of the six steps of curriculum development as given by David E Kern. OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken with an objective to evaluate the whole process of curriculum revision and effectiveness of the Physiology curriculum in achieving the goals, objectives, and outcomes. METHODOLOGY: A framework or model is developed named ‘FIPO model’ of curriculum evaluation. According to this, all four components (Formative phase, Input, Process, Output and Outcome) are evaluated for the ‘Curriculum’. In addition, the model also states the key/concerned person/persons responsible and the assessment/monitoring modality for each component. RESULT: All parameters included in the ‘Formative phase’ of the model, helped to evaluate the initial preparation for carrying out the curriculum revision. For ‘Input’ evaluation, various resources of Physiology department for curriculum revision, implementation, and evaluation, were assessed. It includes Manpower, Infrastructure, Material, Time, Money, etc. The third component of the FIPO model, i.e. process evaluation dealt with two processes, i.e. curriculum revision and curriculum implementation. Evaluation of ‘Output and Outcome’ of the entire exercise of undertaking curriculum revision was undertaken. CONCLUSION: The curriculum evaluation report stated that the curriculum of Physiology subject of MBBS (Phase I) is revised, implemented and evaluated systematically as per the prescribed guidelines using the available resources in an effective and efficient manner. The demonstrable output for the same was the document of ‘Revised Curriculum’ and significant outcomes were in the form of satisfactory result and distinctions for the subject Physiology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7567280
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75672802020-10-22 Curriculum Evaluation of Physiology subject of medical undergraduate using ‘FIPO model’ Choudhari, Sonali Rawekar, Alka Mishra, Vedprakash Srivastava, Tripti Vagha, Sunita J Family Med Prim Care Original Article BACKGROUND: After the formal process of developing/revising and implementing the curriculum, the need arises for its ‘Evaluation’. A plan of evaluation is an integral part of the process of curriculum development, which ultimately yields an evaluation report, giving us the directives for the curriculum reforms in the future. ‘Curriculum Evaluation’ is one of the six steps of curriculum development as given by David E Kern. OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken with an objective to evaluate the whole process of curriculum revision and effectiveness of the Physiology curriculum in achieving the goals, objectives, and outcomes. METHODOLOGY: A framework or model is developed named ‘FIPO model’ of curriculum evaluation. According to this, all four components (Formative phase, Input, Process, Output and Outcome) are evaluated for the ‘Curriculum’. In addition, the model also states the key/concerned person/persons responsible and the assessment/monitoring modality for each component. RESULT: All parameters included in the ‘Formative phase’ of the model, helped to evaluate the initial preparation for carrying out the curriculum revision. For ‘Input’ evaluation, various resources of Physiology department for curriculum revision, implementation, and evaluation, were assessed. It includes Manpower, Infrastructure, Material, Time, Money, etc. The third component of the FIPO model, i.e. process evaluation dealt with two processes, i.e. curriculum revision and curriculum implementation. Evaluation of ‘Output and Outcome’ of the entire exercise of undertaking curriculum revision was undertaken. CONCLUSION: The curriculum evaluation report stated that the curriculum of Physiology subject of MBBS (Phase I) is revised, implemented and evaluated systematically as per the prescribed guidelines using the available resources in an effective and efficient manner. The demonstrable output for the same was the document of ‘Revised Curriculum’ and significant outcomes were in the form of satisfactory result and distinctions for the subject Physiology. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7567280/ /pubmed/33102318 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_175_20 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Choudhari, Sonali
Rawekar, Alka
Mishra, Vedprakash
Srivastava, Tripti
Vagha, Sunita
Curriculum Evaluation of Physiology subject of medical undergraduate using ‘FIPO model’
title Curriculum Evaluation of Physiology subject of medical undergraduate using ‘FIPO model’
title_full Curriculum Evaluation of Physiology subject of medical undergraduate using ‘FIPO model’
title_fullStr Curriculum Evaluation of Physiology subject of medical undergraduate using ‘FIPO model’
title_full_unstemmed Curriculum Evaluation of Physiology subject of medical undergraduate using ‘FIPO model’
title_short Curriculum Evaluation of Physiology subject of medical undergraduate using ‘FIPO model’
title_sort curriculum evaluation of physiology subject of medical undergraduate using ‘fipo model’
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7567280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33102318
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_175_20
work_keys_str_mv AT choudharisonali curriculumevaluationofphysiologysubjectofmedicalundergraduateusingfipomodel
AT rawekaralka curriculumevaluationofphysiologysubjectofmedicalundergraduateusingfipomodel
AT mishravedprakash curriculumevaluationofphysiologysubjectofmedicalundergraduateusingfipomodel
AT srivastavatripti curriculumevaluationofphysiologysubjectofmedicalundergraduateusingfipomodel
AT vaghasunita curriculumevaluationofphysiologysubjectofmedicalundergraduateusingfipomodel