|
A Development of the Instructional Quality Assurance Model in Nursing Science: An Application of Multi-Site Evaluation Approach
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Haruthai Ajpru,
Chulalongkorn University,
ajpru19@gmail.com
|
| Aimorn Jungsiripornpakorn,
Chulalongkorn University,
aimornj@hotmail.com
|
| Suwimon Wongwanit,
Chulalongkorn University,
wsuwimon@chula.ac.th
|
| Abstract:
The purpose of this present study was to develop the instructional quality assurance model in nursing science. This study was undertaken in two phases; a documentary research and multi-site evaluation approach. The samples consisted of 59 institutional accreditation reports, nursing teachers and students from 5 sites, school of nursing in Thailand. The instruments were a coding record, a checklist and a semi-structured interview. Meta-analysis was conducted using HLM 6.02 (hierarchical linear models program) and cross site analysis was conducted by content analysis. The proposed model was developed employing the evidences from related documents and findings from multi-site evaluation. The results indicate that this approach helps receive the information for develop the instructional quality assurance model.
|
|
Developing Future Research Leaders: Evaluation of the Group of Eight (Go8) Universities Program
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Zita Unger,
Evaluation Solutions Pty Ltd,
zunger@evaluationsolutions.com
|
| Abstract:
The Group of Eight (Go8) universities is a coalition of Australia’s leading research intensive universities.
In this highly competitive environment the Group of Eight Universities have collaborated to develop and implement a Future Research Leaders Program providing best practice professional development in financial and resource management to current and emerging researchers who are identified as future research leaders.
Evaluation of overall impact on researcher capabilities and institutional performance utilized a mixed method approach involving (i) evaluation of nine training modules piloted at each contributing university, trialed at three universities and implemented across all eight universities; (ii) establishment of key performance indicator measures collected pre-and post-training delivery for 1,000 researchers; and (iii) eight institutional case studies about researcher productivity and institutional performance.
There are many evaluation challenges in a project of this size, complexity, sensitivity and importance. The paper discusses these challenges and how the evaluation was shaped to meet them.
|
| |