اهداف ارزيابي دانشجو

2. اهداف ارزيابي دانشجو

3. چرا ارزيابي اهميت دارد؟ Assessment drives student learning جورج ميلر تغيير برنامه آموزشي و يا روشهاي آموزش بدون تغيير نحوه امتحانات به هيج نتيجه اي نخواهد رسيد تغيير نظام امتحانات حتي بدون تغيير برنامه اثر بسيار عميق تري نسبت به تغيير برنامه آموزشي بدون تغيير نطام امتحانات بر ماهيت يادگيري باقي مي گذارد ميلر

4. در دراز مدت نوع فعاليت هايي كه دانشجويان براي يادگيـــري انجام مي دهند و آنچه كه ياد مي گيرند ، به وسيله نوع امتحاناتي كه بايد بگذرانند ، تعيين مي شود گيلبرت

5. انواع ارزيابي ارزيابي تكوينيFormative ارزيابي تصديقيSummative

6. اهداف ارزيابي تكويني مطلع ساختن دانشجو از باقيمانده مطالبي كه براي رسيدن به هدفهاي آموزشي بايد ياد بگيرد ارزيابي ميزان پيشرفت دانشجو تعيين نقاط قوت و ضعف يادگيري دانشجو كمك به دانشجو در نقاطي كه ضعف دارد كمك به معلم براي ايجاد تغييرات لازم در برنامه آموزشي يا روش آموزش يا حتي هدف هاي آموزشي در طول دوره آموزشي انجام مي شود نبايد براي قضاوت بكار رود نبايد در هيچ مدرك رسمي ثبت شود

7. اهداف ارزيابي تصديقي هدف نمره دادن به دانشجو معمولا“ در پايان يك دوره آموزشي انجام مي گيرد آزمونها معمولا“ بسيار جامع و مفصل براي تصميم گيري در باره ارتقاي دانشجويان به سال بالاتر و يا دريافت يك درجه علمي بكار مي رود قضاوت در باره اثربخشي كار معلم و برنامه درسي

8. نگاه معملين در فرايند ياددهي يادگيري چه محتوايي بايد تدريس شود ؟ چه چيزي را دانشجويان بايد ياد بگيرند ؟ چه روشهاي ياددهي يادگيري مناسب هستند ؟ چگونه يادگيري دانشجويان را مي توان ارزيابي كرد ؟ ارزيابي در آخرين مرحله فرايند ياددهي و يادگيري مورد توجه معلم قرار مي گيرد

9. نگاه دانشجويان در فرايند ياددهي يادگيري با چه روشي ارزيابي خواهم شد؟ چه چيزي را بايد بدانم ؟ اهداف يادگيري كدامند؟ با چه روشهايي بايد مطالعه كنم ؟ درفرايند ياددهي و يادگيري از نظر دانشجويان ارزيابي معمولا“ در راس قرار ارد

10. Evaluation is for Improvement Not Provement

11. 360 Degree Performance Appraisal

12. Definition • Evaluation tool that utilizes opinions of ,many different people that interact with the employee on a routine basis3 • Generates more accurate feedback by “gathering information from people about an individual’s performance as seen by the standards and expectations of their boss, self, peers, direct reports, and customers.” ابزار ارزشیابی است که از عقاید افراد مختلف که با فرد آزمون شونده بصورت روتین اینترکشن دارند استفاده می کند فیدبک دقیقتری از طریق جمع اوری اطلاعات از افراد درمورد توانائی performance فرد به دست می دهد که این توانائی ها بوسیله استانداردها وانتظارات رئیس،خود فرد،همکاران،گزارشات مستقیم ومشتریان دیده میشود.

13. Key Features • Usually based on a questionnaire, possibly web-based • Choosing Appraisers • Done by the individual employee • Done by HR • Done randomly • Feedback is usually anonymous • Appraisal is normally followed up with actions for individual improvement and development • Not to be used for decision-making, only purpose is for employee growth • Utilizes many stakeholders inside, and outside of, the organization • معمولاً بر اساس پرسشنامه است • انتخاب ارزیاب ها توسط برخی از کارکنان ویا بصورت راندوم انجام میشود • فیدبک معمولاً بدون نام anonymous است • ارزیابی معمولاً با واکنش فرد برای بهبودی و وپیشرفت دنبال می شود • برای تصمیم گیری استفاده نمیشود • فقط برای ارتقاء فرد استفاده می شود

14. Appropriate Uses • Employee Development • Employee Coaching • Validate personal opinion of one’s self (or not) • Starting point for personal development plan • Seeking objective information, such as determining employee knowledge, skills, and behavior, not personality traits • Benchmark individual performance against peer group • Provide a broader view of the employee’s performance • تکامل و پیشرفت فرد • آماده سازی فرد • ارزش بخشیدن به عقیده شخصی فرد • نقطه شروع برای پلن تکاملی و پیشرفت • جستجوی اطلاعات عینی مثل تعیین دانش،مهارت ها ورفتار فرد ونه ویژگی شخصیتی فرد • محک زدن توانائی فردی درمقابل هم گروههایش • فراهم نمودن یک چشم انداز وسیعتر از توانائی فرد

15. Inappropriate Uses • Rarely linked to decisions on pay • Not recommended for promotion decisions • Should not be a heavy determinant in bonus awards • In small organizations where anonymity is unlikely or there are a lack of enough peers and direct reports to reduce outlying opinions • ندرتاً به تصمیم گیری ارتباط دارد • برای پیشبرد تصمیمات توصیه نمیشود • نباید یک تعیین کننده قوی دراعطای جایزه یاتشویق باشد • درسازمانهای کوچک که احتمال ناشناس ماندن کمتر است

16. Pros Combined opinions more accurate Colleague comments tend to carry weight Some skills are best judged by peers and not management Increases motivation of employees Helps engender a more honest organizational culture Cons Administratively burdensome Results can be difficult to interpret Feedback can de damaging unless handled appropriately Can generate an environment of suspicion and cynicism if not managed opened and honestly Pros and Cons

17. Support For Use • US Office of Personnel Management supports research that shows “assessment approaches with multiple rating sources provide more accurate, reliable, and credible information” • Spencer and Morrow indicate that 360-degree feedback systems could yield a Return on Investment as high as 700 percent • In 1997, 8% of companies used 360°, increased to 10% by 2000 • Current posted information at www.360-degreefeedback.com states that nearly all Fortune 1000 companies have either already implemented a 360 degree approach or plan to shortly

18. Is The Environment Appropriate? • Ask yourself the following questions: • What is the desired outcome of the feedback? • Do we have enough raters? • Is this applicable to all of our employees or an employee group? • Are our employees mature enough to handle the feedback and to give feedback? • Is there openness and trust between supervisors and their direct reports?

19. Is The Environment Appropriate? • More questions to ask yourself • Are our employees and “managers willing to listen and learn and to effect any necessary changes as a result?” • Are we willing to devote the time and energy to make this system work? (It won’t work unless everyone in the organization is on board from the “get-go”) • What do we want to do with the information that is gained? Help the employees grow or are we looking for a way to determine pay and promotion?

20. Implementation • Build credibility early on by seeking input from all levels of the organization; use this input to craft the feedback tool • Ensure the employees that this will not be used to determine pay, promotion, or bonus • Instill in management that this tool is to assist them in coaching their direct reports to grow in all aspects of their professional responsibilities • Seek outside professional help to ensure smooth implementation • Train appraisers to be constructive, positive, and specific with their feedback

21. Implementation • 360-feedback.com 9 Step Process • Determine organizational readiness • Develop an appropriate survey and process given organizational needs and objectives • Generate enthusiasm among key decision makers and participants • Ensure that participants and managers have the skills to support the process • Provide an orientation briefing • Administer the survey • Coach participants in one-on-one meetings • Provide organizational summary data • Re-conduct the survey (in four to six months)

22. Participants • Superiors • Peers • Direct Reports • Customers • Self

23. Participants The following slides outline the pros and cautions associated with each participant in 360 Degree Appraisal process. There may be occasions when one source or another may not be chosen to participate. For each individual being appraised, specific groups should be chosen to ensure that the feedback is appropriate and that a plan for improvement can be generated for the employee. A pro is something that is a positive outcome from that specific group. A caution is not something that is necessarily negative but must be monitored so that it does not create a negative situation for all involved.

24. Pros First-line supervisors often in best position to carry out full cycle performance management Superiors have authority to redesign an employees work based on individual and team performance Most Federal employees think that best ratings come from first-line supervisors Cautions Relying solely on superiors reduces validity of performance feedback Superiors may not be in same location as employee, preventing them from having hands-on knowledge of the employee’s performance Training may be lacking on appropriate methods of evaluation Superiors

25. Peers1 • Pros • Peer pressure and peer approval more effective motivators than supervisors • Peer ratings have proven to be excellent predictors of future performance • Peer ratings remarkably valid and reliable in rating behaviors and manner of performance • Peer ratings tend to average out bias from other groups in the rating process • Increased use of self-directed team encourages use of peer evaluation • Peer ratings help move supervisors into a coaching role as opposed to a pure judging role

26. Peers • Cautions • Should not be used to determine pay, bonuses, or promotions (creates animosity and prevents truthful responses from peers) • Do not divulge the names of those providing feedback; in general anonymity is preferred to prevent animosity and generate truthful responses • Choose the peers wisely; don’t choose at random-the peers must be very familiar with the work requirements and performance • Can be very time consuming for peers to participate • Can cause tension among employees and breakdown of teams • Ensure employee involvement in creation; otherwise no buy-in will be achieved from employees or their representatives

27. Pros Gives supervisors a more comprehensive picture of employee needs & issues Makes employees feel that they have a greater voice in organizational decision making Extremely effective in evaluating supervisor’s interpersonal skills Combine direct report ratings to achieve an average rating; adds validity and reliability Supervisors are more responsive to direct report feedback, creating more effective managers Cautions Need for anonymity is essential; if not anonymous, reprisal from supervisors is likely Supervisors may feel that authority is undermined when they must take into consideration that their employees are rating them Allow only direct reports with at least a one year relationship with the supervisor and no disciplinary action to comment If undergoing downsizing or reorganization, carefully weigh the need for direct reports in the process; may add fuel to the fire Direct Reports

28. Pros Serves as “anchor” for all other performance factors Combined with peer evaluation, these data round out feedback and focus attention beyond only serving the supervisor’s needs Ensures that the employees concentrate their attention on the customer as the customer will have some say with regards to their feedback Cautions Only ask customers to evaluate outputs, not processes; they can’t always see the entire process Customer feedback process is time consuming; focus this time on “big picture” items Don’t ask the customer to evaluate a single employee, unless the customer has a direct relationship with the employee Customers

29. Pros Improves communication between supervisor and employee Particularly useful if entire cycle focuses on self-assessment; forces individual to keep track of successes and failures Develops ability to see one’s self for what they really are Allows supervisor to have better handle on performance when it can not always be observed Cautions Research indicates “low correlation between self-ratings and all other sources of ratings, particularly supervisor ratings” Self ratings are consistently higher than other ratings If supervisors do not use appropriate feedback skills, the fact that a self-rating is higher than the supervisor’s may cause alienation and defensiveness Self

30. Web Resources • www.360-degreefeedback.com • www.hr.com • http://humanresources.about.com • www.businessballs.com • www.managers.org.uk • www.quality.org • www.opm.gov

31. Closing Thought This is a performance development tool! “In working with organizations, one of the biggest fears people have is that a group of anonymous people will determine their raises, promotions, and standing. I am a strong proponent of introducing 360 degree feedback as a developmental tool for individuals. In a performance development environment, the question of whether 360 degree feedback should impact performance appraisal becomes irrelevant. The performance appraisal has transformed into the performance development tool. The measurements used to determine compensation in such a system include meeting measurable goals, attendance, and contribution.” -Susan M. Heathfield11

32. The end

33. 360 o Who Should Assess? • Faculty • Self • Peers • Tutors • Other team members • Standardized patients, patients • External and internal examiners • Public, society, …

34. 360 Degree Evaluation • Surveys of people who work with the resident • Nurses • Other residents • Students • Other health professionals • Staff • Given as feedback to resident to help improve (few studies of effectiveness and reliability in resident education)

35. 360 Degree Evaluation Craig McClure, MD May 15, 2003 Educational Outcomes Service Group

36. Description • Use of rating forms to report frequency of observed behavior • Multiple people in contact with resident act as evaluators • Often survey type form • Ratings summarized by topic • Include goal-setting

37. Background • Human resources in business • ACGME found no published reports of use in GME

38. Use for “Soft” Areas • More accurate for formative than summative feedback • Interpersonal & communication • Professional behavior • Limited • Patient care • Systems-based practice

39. Decision to Utilize • Accepted and used by residents, faculty, staff? • Develop or purchase? • Cost? • Who are the raters? • How will the tool be used?

40. Decision to Utilize (2) • To whom is the information available? • What core competencies will be evaluated with this tool? • How nurture trust the process remains confidential? • Platform of evaluation

41. Acceptance • Will all potential evaluators fully participate? • Will raters be fair & honest? • Will residents accept the feedback from non-faculty?

42. Develop or Purchase • Development permits tailoring • Development time may be considerable • Purchasing gives a ready-made product • Purchasing: computer based

43. Developing • Expert in educational testing • Programming expertise • Pilot period

44. Purchase • Items measured appropriate? • Does it perform as claimed? • Inter-rater reliability? • Degree of support and ability to customize

45. Cost • If purchasing, monetary cost • If developing, personnel support • Data management system • Personnel time to complete forms • Annual development plan

46. Cost (2) • Addressing EEOC/grievance complaints • Handling disputes over data • Divisive & counterproductive for those resistant

47. Personnel Evaluation Time • 5 to 10 nurse evaluators per resident to give reproducible results • More for faculty • More for patients

48. Identify Raters • Patients (how explain process) • Nursing staff • Clerical staff members • Physician faculty members • Non-physician faculty members • Residents

49. Identify Raters (2) • Medical students • Allied Health Personnel • Self-assessment

50. Patients as Raters • Literacy • Language • Culture (medical and otherwise) • Personality