Elizabeth Anderson1, Roger Smith2, Marilyn Hammick3. 1. a University of Leicester , UK . 2. b University of Durham , UK . 3. c International Education and Research Consultant , UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper retrospectively reports on an evaluation framework applied to a local interprofessional education (IPE) curriculum design. The theoretically informed IPE curriculum spans the undergraduate health and social care programmes of over 10 professions as a curriculum theme. The teaching design and its impact were informed by psycho-social and learning theories. AIMS: This meta-analysis is presented to share the importance of longitudinal IPE, whole curriculum evaluation for comparisons and to advance our understandings of what works and why. METHOD: The meta-analysis used the Presage, Process and Product conceptual framework outlined by Biggs in 1993, and the Kirkpatrick in 1996, evaluation outcome model. Data are shared on the final overall learning from evaluating the teaching and the outcomes from students, teachers, practitioners, patients and carers. RESULTS: The evaluation highlighted cyclical issues relating to students experiences, facilitators abilities and highlights the challenges of learning in practice which was highly praised by students. The problems and challenges were solved through the application of theory to illuminate our understandings. CONCLUSION: We lament at missed opportunities for the application of theoretically informed research questions that still require to be addressed. However, we share this framework as having offered a complete and comprehensive evaluation process.
BACKGROUND: This paper retrospectively reports on an evaluation framework applied to a local interprofessional education (IPE) curriculum design. The theoretically informed IPE curriculum spans the undergraduate health and social care programmes of over 10 professions as a curriculum theme. The teaching design and its impact were informed by psycho-social and learning theories. AIMS: This meta-analysis is presented to share the importance of longitudinal IPE, whole curriculum evaluation for comparisons and to advance our understandings of what works and why. METHOD: The meta-analysis used the Presage, Process and Product conceptual framework outlined by Biggs in 1993, and the Kirkpatrick in 1996, evaluation outcome model. Data are shared on the final overall learning from evaluating the teaching and the outcomes from students, teachers, practitioners, patients and carers. RESULTS: The evaluation highlighted cyclical issues relating to students experiences, facilitators abilities and highlights the challenges of learning in practice which was highly praised by students. The problems and challenges were solved through the application of theory to illuminate our understandings. CONCLUSION: We lament at missed opportunities for the application of theoretically informed research questions that still require to be addressed. However, we share this framework as having offered a complete and comprehensive evaluation process.
Authors: Hannah R Roncallo; Jessica M Ray; Regina C Kulacz; Thomas J Yang; Christopher Chmura; Leigh V Evans; Ambrose H Wong Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2020-08-16