The student voice in evaluation: different stage – different timbre
Sonesson, Anders LU
; Thomé, Bibbi
LU
; Erici, Sten
LU
and Edgren, Gudrun
LU
(2014)
The Association for Medical Education in Europe
- Abstract
- Background
The quality and relevance of the information gathered is paramount when using the student voice to improve study programmes.
Summary of work
In an on-going project we follow three cohorts of nursing students through their three-year programme. Methods used are two validated inventories (DREEM and CLES+T), written “free” comments, focus groups, semester meetings, and interviews with individual students. The purpose is twofold: to improve the programme and to better understand methods of evaluation. Here we report on the latter.
Summary of results
Compared, the different methods paint quite different and sometimes conflicting pictures of the programme. This can partly be... (More) - Background
The quality and relevance of the information gathered is paramount when using the student voice to improve study programmes.
Summary of work
In an on-going project we follow three cohorts of nursing students through their three-year programme. Methods used are two validated inventories (DREEM and CLES+T), written “free” comments, focus groups, semester meetings, and interviews with individual students. The purpose is twofold: to improve the programme and to better understand methods of evaluation. Here we report on the latter.
Summary of results
Compared, the different methods paint quite different and sometimes conflicting pictures of the programme. This can partly be attributed to limitations inherent to the methods used, e.g. closed or open questions, anonymity or not, written views or discussions. However, preliminary results suggest that the way in which a particular evaluation or method is framed, along with the inter- and intragroup dynamics it helps to create, will bring certain experiences or agendas to the foreground while pushing others to the side.
Conclusions
In order to better make use of the student voice in programme development we need to improve our understanding of evaluation methods and framing from the students’ point of view.
Take-home message
The quality and usefulness of data from evaluations depends not only on the questions and techniques used to collect student views. Important is also how the stage for evaluation is set and how students perceive the situation (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/4646154
- author
- Sonesson, Anders
LU
; Thomé, Bibbi
LU
; Erici, Sten
LU
and Edgren, Gudrun
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2014
- type
- Contribution to conference
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Curriculum Quality Assurance Medical education Evaluation
- categories
- Higher Education
- conference name
- The Association for Medical Education in Europe
- conference dates
- 0001-01-02
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- f0ee3aa3-4505-400f-9b68-15a4419ae5a1 (old id 4646154)
- alternative location
- http://www.amee.org/getattachment/f560df95-93dc-4b6f-98a8-e3d9c2677e88/AMEE-2014-Programme.pdf
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 14:21:14
- date last changed
- 2018-11-21 21:19:49
@misc{f0ee3aa3-4505-400f-9b68-15a4419ae5a1,
abstract = {{<b>Background</b><br/>The quality and relevance of the information gathered is paramount when using the student voice to improve study programmes.<br/><b><br/>Summary of work</b><br/>In an on-going project we follow three cohorts of nursing students through their three-year programme. Methods used are two validated inventories (DREEM and CLES+T), written “free” comments, focus groups, semester meetings, and interviews with individual students. The purpose is twofold: to improve the programme and to better understand methods of evaluation. Here we report on the latter.<br/><b><br/>Summary of results</b><br/>Compared, the different methods paint quite different and sometimes conflicting pictures of the programme. This can partly be attributed to limitations inherent to the methods used, e.g. closed or open questions, anonymity or not, written views or discussions. However, preliminary results suggest that the way in which a particular evaluation or method is framed, along with the inter- and intragroup dynamics it helps to create, will bring certain experiences or agendas to the foreground while pushing others to the side.<br/><br/><b>Conclusions<br/></b>In order to better make use of the student voice in programme development we need to improve our understanding of evaluation methods and framing from the students’ point of view.<br/><br/><b>Take-home message</b><br/>The quality and usefulness of data from evaluations depends not only on the questions and techniques used to collect student views. Important is also how the stage for evaluation is set and how students perceive the situation}},
author = {{Sonesson, Anders and Thomé, Bibbi and Erici, Sten and Edgren, Gudrun}},
keywords = {{Curriculum Quality Assurance Medical education Evaluation}},
language = {{eng}},
title = {{The student voice in evaluation: different stage – different timbre}},
url = {{http://www.amee.org/getattachment/f560df95-93dc-4b6f-98a8-e3d9c2677e88/AMEE-2014-Programme.pdf}},
year = {{2014}},
}