Mezuniyet Öncesi Tıp Eğitiminde CIPP Modelinin Yenilikçi Bir Uygulaması: Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Deneyimi

Year 2025, Volume: 24 Issue: 72, 5 - 10

Selçuk Akturan

https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.1623971

Abstract

Bu vaka çalışması, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi (KTÜ) Tıp Fakültesi lisans tıp eğitimi programında, program değerlendirme için Bağlam, Girdi, Süreç ve Ürün (CIPP) modelinin yenilikçi uygulamasını incelemektedir. CIPP modeli, eğitim ortamlarında adaptasyon yeteneğiyle geniş çapta tanınırken, KTÜ Tıp Fakültesinin program değerlendirme yaklaşımı, tıp eğitiminin karmaşık taleplerini karşılamak üzere uyarlanmış özgün bir yöntem sunmaktadır. Çalışmada, modelin program hesap verebilirliğini artırma, müfredat tasarımını toplumsal sağlık ihtiyaçlarıyla uyumlu hale getirme ve çeşitli paydaş perspektiflerini entegre etme kapasitesine dikkat çekilmektedir. Bu vaka çalışması, karmaşık eğitim bağlamlarında CIPP uygulamak isteyen kurumlar için tekrar edilebilir bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Program değerlendirme, Lisans tıp eğitimi, CIPP modeli, Karmaşıklık

A Novel Implementation of the CIPP Model in Undergraduate Medical Education: The Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Medicine Experience

Abstract

This case study explores the innovative application of the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model for program evaluation in the undergraduate medical education program at Karadeniz Technical University (KTU) Faculty of Medicine. While CIPP is widely recognized for its adaptability in educational settings, the KTU approach introduces unique methodologies tailored to meet the complex demands of medical education. It is highlighted that the model’s capacity to enhance program accountability, align curriculum design with societal health needs, and integrate diverse stakeholder perspectives. This case study presents a replicable framework for institutions seeking to implement CIPP in complex educational contexts.

Keywords

Program evaluation, Undergraduate medical education, CIPP model, Complexity

References

• 1. Jorm C, Roberts C. Using Complexity Theory to Guide Medical School Evaluations. Acad Med. 2018;93(3):399–405. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001828.
• 2. Khanna P, Roberts C, Lane AS. Designing health professional education curricula using systems thinking perspectives. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):20. doi:10.1186/s12909-020-02442-5.
• 3. Ogden K, Kilpatrick S, Elmer S. Examining the nexus between medical education and complexity: a systematic review to inform practice and research. BMC Med Educ. 2023.
• 4. Lee SY, Shin JS, Lee SH. How to execute Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model in medical health education. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:40. doi:10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.40.
• 5. Frye AW, Hemmer PA. Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):e288–e299. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637.
• 6. Kool B, Wise MR, Peiris-John R, Sadler L, Mahony F, Wells S. Is the delivery of a quality improvement education programme in obstetrics and gynaecology for final year medical students feasible and still effective in a shortened time frame?. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):91. doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0927-y
• 7. Yazdimoghaddam H, Samadipour E, Ghardashi F, et al. Designing a comprehensive clinical competency test for operating room technology student: Using Delphi technique and CIPP model evaluation. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:240. doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_1563_20
• 8. Chen MC, Macario A, Tanaka P. Evaluation of the Stanford Anesthesiology Faculty Teaching Scholars Program Using the Context, Input, Process, and Product Framework. J Educ Perioper Med. 2022;24(4):E693. doi:10.46374/volxxiv_issue4_chen
• 9. Karadeniz Tıp Fakültesi Mezuniyet Öncesi Eğitim Programı Öz Değerlendirme Raporu - 2024. Accessed January 13, 2025. Available from: https://www.XXX.edu.tr/dosyalar/med_8W7iq.pdf.
• 10. Toosi M, Dehghani MR, Keshavarz M, et al. Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluation Model in medical education: A systematic review. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:95.
• 11. Ai Li E, Wilson CA, Davidson J, et al. Exploring Perceptions of Competency-Based Medical Education in Undergraduate Medical Students and Faculty: A Program Evaluation. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023;14:381–389. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S399851.
• 12. Ullah H, Huma S, Yasin G, et al. Curriculum and program evaluation in medical education: a short systematic literature review. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2024;86(10):5988–5994. doi:10.1097/MS9.0000000000002518.
• 13. Barber C, van der Vleuten C, Leppink J, Chahine S. Social Accountability Frameworks and Their Implications for Medical Education and Program Evaluation: A Narrative Review. Acad Med. 2020;95(12):1945–1954. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000003731.
• 14. Haghani F, Sadeghizadeh A, Hassanzadeh GR, et al. Undergraduate medical education programme renewal: a longitudinal multi-method study applying the CIPP evaluation model. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4(4):202–215.
• 15. Singh MD. Evaluation Framework for Nursing Education Programs: Application of the CIPP Model. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2004;1(1):Article 7.
• 16. Keshavarz M, Baghaei R, Isfahani SS, Jalili M. Undergraduate medical education programme renewal: a longitudinal study based on the CIPP model. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4(4):198–205.
• 17. Kim DH, Kim S, Kim EJ, et al. How to execute Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model in medical education programs. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:40.
• 18. Mezuniyet Öncesi Tıp Eğitimi Ulusal Çekirdek Eğitim Programı. Accessed January 16, 2025. Available from: https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Ulusal-cekirdek-egitimi-programlari/mezuniyet-oncesi-tip-egitimi-cekirdek-egitimi-programi.pdf.