Tıp Fakültesi 4. ve 6. Sınıf Programlarının Profesyonalizm Açısından Demirel’in Analitik Modeline Göre Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Karma Yöntem Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada tıp fakültesi programının hedef boyutunun profesyonellikle ilgili hedefleri içerip içermediği, öğrencilerin bu boyutları ne ölçüde, hangi öğrenme aşamasında edindikleri ve tıp fakültesi programının hedef boyutunun Demirel'in Analitik Müfredat Değerlendirme Modeli'ne (DACEM) göre değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Karma bir araştırma tasarımı olan ardışık açıklayıcı tasarım kullanılmış ve toplam 337 4. ve 6. sınıf tıp öğrencisi dahil edilmiştir. Aritmetik ortalama, çok yönlü varyans analizi, çok değişkenli kovaryans analizi ve ilişki analizi, içerik analizi ve doküman analizi yapılmıştır. Programlar DACEM ile değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuç: Profesyonellik puanları ortalama ve ortalamanın üzerindeydi. Bu boyutların çoğunda birbirleriyle olumlu ilişkiler vardı. Programlarda empati ve motivasyonla ilgili hedefler yoktu. Diğer profesyonellik boyutlarıyla ilgili sınırlı sayıda hedef vardı ve bunlar çoğunlukla klinik eğitim yıllarındaydı. Sonuç: DACEM'e göre programlardaki hedefler, hedef yazım ilkelerine uygun olarak tasarlanmamıştır, hedefler belirlenirken herhangi bir taksonomi kullanılmamıştır ve hedeflerde örtüşme vardır. Programların dayandığı felsefe açıkça belirtilmemiştir ve hedeflerin toplumun ihtiyaç ve beklentileri ile öğrencinin düzeyi ve gereksinimleri doğrultusunda tasarlandığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Tıp Öğrencileri
• Profesyonellik
• Program Değerlendirmesi
• Mezuniyet Öncesi Tıp Eğitimi

Evaluation of Medical School 4th and 6th Grade Programs in Terms of Professionalism According to Demirel’s Analytical Model: A Mixed Method Study

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate whether the objective dimension of medical school curriculum includes objectives related to professionalism, to what extent, at what learning stage students acquire these dimensions, and to evaluate the objective dimension of medical school curriculum according to Demirel's Analytical Curriculum Evaluation Model (DACEM). Methods: The sequential explanatory design, a mixed research design, was used and it included a total of 337 4th and 6th year medical students. Arithmetic mean, multi-way analysis of variance, multivariate analysis of covariance and relationship analysis, content analysis and document analysis were performed. The programs were evaluated with the DACEM. Results: Professionalism scores were average and above average. Positive relationships with each other have been in many of these dimensions. There were no objectives regarding empathy and motivation in the programs. There were a limited number of objectives related to other professionalism dimensions and these were mostly in the clinical training years. Conclusions: According to the DACEM, the objectives in the programs were not designed in accordance with the principles of objective writing, no taxonomy was used when determining the objectives, and there was an overlap in the objectives. The philosophy on which the programs are based was not clearly stated, and it has been seen that the objectives are designed in accordance with the needs and expectations of the society and the level and requirements of the student.

Keywords

• Medical students
• Professionalism
• Program Evaluation
• Undergraduate Medical Education

References

1. 1. NCC. Pre-Graduate Medical Education National Core Education Program. 2020. 24.03.2021, https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Ulusal-cekirdek-egitimi-programlari/mezuniyet-oncesi-tip-egitimi-cekirdek-egitimi-programi.pdf
2. 2. Morrison J. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Evaluation. BMJ. 2003;326(7385):385–387.
3. 3. Saracaloğlu AS. Program Development and Evaluation. In: Saracaloğlu AS. Küçükoğlu A. editors. Teaching principles and methods. 4th ed. Ankara, Pegem Akademi, 2019.
4. 4. Demirel Ö. Curriculum development in education from Theory to practice (27th Edition). Pegem A Publishing. 2020.
5. 5. Creswell JW. Introduction to mixed methods research. Pegem Akademi. 2021.
6. 6. Eğmir E. Mixed methods research Design. In: Ocak G, editor. Scientific research methods in education. Pegem A. 2019.
7. 7. Yazçayır N. The Development of DACEM Curriculum Evaluation Criteria. IJOCIS. 2016;6(12):169-181.
8. 8. Teke AK, Cengiz E, Demir C. Measurement of the physician empathy and the variation of this measurement in relation to demographic variables. Çukurova University Social Sciences Institute Journal. 2010;19(3):505-516.

9. 9. Sarıçam H. Erdemir N. The brief regulation of motivation scale in turkish university students: A Preliminary Scale Adaptation Study. IX. International Congress on Psychological Counseling and Guidance in Higher Education. 2019:233-241. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.30409.90722
10. 10. Budak F. Turkish validity and reliability study of Clinical Leadership Scale: Public Hospitals Sample. Acıbadem University Health Sciences Journal. 2017;(2):85-91.
11. 11. İlhan M, Çetin B. Validity and reliability study of the turkish version of the Cultural Intelligence Scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education. 2014;29(2):94-114.
12. 12. Aytuğ Koşan AM. Toraman Ç. Development and application of the Commitment to Profession of Medicine Scale using classical test theory and item response theory. Croat Med J., 2020;61:391-400.
13. 13. Basım HN. Çetin F. The Reliability and Validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults Turkish Version. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry. 2011;22(2):104-114.
14. 14. Ülkü HH. Saracaloglu AS. Development and validation of a Clinical Decision- Making Scale for Medical Students. Med Bull Haseki 2024; 62:75-81.
15. 15. Gamsızkan Z, Cangür Ş. Evaluation of empathic tendency and comunication skills in grade 3 students in faculty of medicine. Jour Turk Fam Phy. 2019;10(2):89-97.
16. 16. Afyoncu AA, Korkmazer B, Sarıgül B, Şahin EM. Empathy levels of medical residents. Troia Med J 2021;2(1):3-7.
17. 17. Okuyaz S, Direk M, Ögenler O, Derici Yıldırım D. A pilot study on empathy skills of pediatrics. Mersin University School of Medicine Lokman Hekim Journal of History of Medicine and Folk Medicine. 2019;9(2):228-235.
18. 18. Kadıoğlu S, Ögenler O, Kadıoğlu F. Okuyaz S. The impact of clinical education on the empathy level of medical students. Journal of Turgut Ozal Medical Center. 2011;18(1):33-37.
19. 19. Hojat M, Vergare MJ, Maxwell K, Brainard G, Herrine SK, Isenberg GA, Veloski J, Gonnella JS. The devil is in the third year: a longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Academic Medicine. 2009;84(9):1182-1191.
20. 20. Tahrekhani M, Sadeghian Z. Intrinsic motivation comparative investigation between nursery, midwifery, and medicine students during internship in Iran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 185:185-189.
21. 21. Özer Ö, Budak F, Şentürk S, Gün Ç. The examination of the clinical leadership perceptions of physicians and nurses regarding socio-demographic variables. Journal of Education and Research in Nursing. 2018;15(2):99-105.
22. 22. Majda A, Bodys-Cupak IE, Zalewska-Puchała J, Barzykowski K. Cultural competence and cultural intelligence of healthcare professionals providing emergency medical services. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18:11547.
23. 23. Olson K, Kemper KJ. Mahan JD. What factors promote resilience and protect against burnout in first-year pediatric and medicine-pediatric residents? Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine. 2015;20(3):192-198.
24. 24. Yıldırım Keskin A. The clinical decision making perceptions of nursing students and the factors affecting clincal decision making. Journal of Ankara Health Sciences. 2020;9(2):102-111.
25. 25. Ülkü H, Şenol Y. Mezuniyet Öncesi Tıp Eğitiminde Profesyonalizm Ve İletişim Becerilerinin 360 Derece Değerlendirme Yöntemiyle Belirlenmesi. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. 2017;16(49):28-3.