J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2019;16:40. 10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.40.

How to execute Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model in medical health education

• Lee Sy
• Shin JS
• Lee SH

• KMID: 2502159
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.40

Abstract

Improvements to education are necessary in order to keep up with the education requirements of today. The Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) evaluation model was created for the decision-making towards education improvement, so this model is appropriate in this regard. However, application of this model in the actual context of medical health education is considered difficult in the education environment. Thus, in this study, literature survey of previous studies was investigated to examine the execution procedure of how the CIPP model can be actually applied. For the execution procedure utilizing the CIPP model, the criteria and indicators were determined from analysis results and material was collected after setting the material collection method. Afterwards, the collected material was analyzed for each CIPP element, and finally, the relationship of each CIPP element was analyzed for the final improvement decision-making. In this study, these steps were followed and the methods employed in previous studies were organized. Particularly, the process of determining the criteria and indicators was important and required a significant effort. Literature survey was carried out to analyze the most widely used criteria through content analysis and obtained a total of 12 criteria. Additional emphasis is necessary in the importance of the criteria selection for the actual application of the CIPP model. Also, a diverse range of information can be obtained through qualitative as well as quantitative methods. Above all, since the CIPP evaluation model execution result becomes the basis for the execution of further improved evaluations, the first attempt of performing without hesitation is essential.

Keyword

Context, Input, Process, and Product model; Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model; Educational evaluation

Reference

References

1. Worthen BR, Sanders JR, Fitzpartrick JL. Program evaluation: alternative approached and practical guidelines. New York (NY): Longman;1997.

2. Kim HS. Supplier-centered evaluation model. In : Kim HS, editor. Theory and practice of educational programme evaluation. Paju: Kyoyookbook;2015. p. 45–164.

3. Kim HS. Type of educational evaluation. In : Baek SG, editor. Theory and practice of educational evaluation. Paju: yoyookbook;2019. p. 33–76.

4. Sung TJ. Evaluation model and school evaluation. In : Sung TJ, editor. Modern educational evaluation. Seoul: Hakjisa;2011. p. 477–505.

5. Kang CY. Development of evaluation model and indicators for school curriculum. Sejong: Ministry of Education;2013. p. 146.

6. Kim OJ. A study on the measures for managing the quality of curriculum of early childhood education department in college with the application of CIPP model based on PDCA. J Korea Converg Soc. 2019; 10:215–226. https://doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2019.10.1.215.

7. Stufflebeam DL, Shinkfield AJ. Systematic evaluation: a self-instructional guide to theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer;1985. p. 368.

8. Lee SY, Lee SH, Shin JS. Evaluation of medical humanities course in college of medicine using the Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model. J Korean Med Sci. 2019; 34:e163. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e163.

9. Rooholamini A, Amini M, Bazrafkan L, Dehghani MR, Esmaeilzadeh Z, Nabeiei P, Rezaee R, Kojuri J. Program evaluation of an integrated basic science medical curriculum in Shiraz Medical School, using CIPP evaluation model. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2017; 5:148–154.

10. Neyazi N, Arab PM, Farzianpour F, Mahmoudi Majdabadi M. Evaluation of selected faculties at Tehran University of Medical Sciences using CIPP model in students and graduates point of view. Eval Program Plann. 2016; 59:88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.06.013.

11. Al-Khathami AD. Evaluation of Saudi family medicine training program: the application of CIPP evaluation format. Med Teach. 2012; 34 Suppl 1:S81–S89. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.656752.

12. Neyazi N, Arab M, Farzianpour F, Mahmoudi M. Identifying weaknesses in undergraduate programs within the context input process product model framework in view of faculty and library staff in 2014. Korean J Med Educ. 2016; 28:185–194. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2016.29.

13. Mirzazadeh A, Gandomkar R, Hejri SM, Hassanzadeh G, Koochak HE, Golestani A, Jafarian A, Jalili M, Nayeri F, Saleh N, Shahi F, Razavi SH. Undergraduate medical education programme renewal: a longitudinal context, input, process and product evaluation study. Perspect Med Educ. 2016; 5:15–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0243-3.

14. Ashghali-Farahani M, Ghaffari F, Hoseini-Esfidarjani SS, Hadian Z, Qomi R, Dargahi H. Neonatal intensive care nursing curriculum challenges based on Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model: a qualitative study. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2018; 23:111–118. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_3_17.

15. Yarmohammadian MH, Mohebbi N. Review evaluation indicators of health information technology course of master’s degree in medical sciences universities’ based on CIPP Model. J Educ Health Promot. 2015; 4:28. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9531.154122.

16. Frye AW, Hemmer PA. Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Med Teach. 2012; 34:e288–e299. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637.

17. Yi BJ, Park JY, Park EH. A study of the assessment model for art museum educational programs. Art Educ Rev. 2009; 33:385–404.

18. Cho YS, Lee YS. Development of evaluation criteria for school consulting based on the CIPP evaluation model. Korean J Educ Adm. 2015; 33:277–301.

19. Shin YJ, Kim ST, Song HD. Development of evaluation indicators for Job capability strengthening program for vocational high school with application of CIPP evaluation model. J Vocat Educ Res. 2018; 37:1–23.

20. Jang ES, Hwang HS. Development of assessment criteria for education and training program of government-financed scientific and technical research institute based on CIPP. Korean J Technol Educ. 2015; 15:323–341.

21. Jung KY, Choi YH. Development of assessment criteria for scientific technology education program by science museum based on CIPP. Korean J Technol Educ. 2011; 11:85–103.

22. Lee YM. Examining the perceived impacts of training programs for small and midium-sized corporation employees’ competency development on their performance, using the CIPP evaluation model. J Train Dev. 2012; (24):1–20.

23. Kim DR, Yum SC. Developing an evaluation scale for the college tutoring program based on the cipp model. Educ Res. 2017; 39:63–84.

24. Jung JG. Clarification and implementation of CIPP evaluation for the improvement of education. J Educ Res. 2000; 21:103–121.

25. Baik Y. Study on effects of arts education in ‘2011 Orchestra of Dream’ applied CIPP model. J Arts Cult Manag. 2012; 5:29–50.

26. Jung SH, Moon YG. A study on developing an index for evaluating social service using the CIPP model. J Korea Policy Res. 2013; 13:233–254.

27. Kim YJ, Son EG. A Study on Satisfaction of New Nurse Orientation Program Applying CIPP Evaluation Model Focusing on Affiliated Hospitals of an Educational Foundation in South Korea. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 2017; 18:226–235. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2017.18.9.226.

28. Mennin S. Self-organisation, integration and curriculum in the complex world of medical education. Med Educ. 2010; 44:20–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03548.x.

29. Stufflebeam DL, Shinkfield AJ. Evaluation theory, models, and application. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass;2007. p. 764.

30. Stufflebeam DL, Coryn CL. Research methods for the social sciences: evaluation theory, models, and application. 2nd ed. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass;2007. p. 800.

31. Baek SG, Yu YL. An educational policy evaluation on the 2009 secondary school teacher appointment examination. J Educ Eval. 2008; 21:69–91.

32. Stufflebeam DL. The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. J Res Dev Educ. 1971; 5:19–25.