Fri, Nov 22, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 17, Issue 55 (2024)
JMED 2024, 17(55): 120-128 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.IUMS.REC 1395.30150
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ravaghi H, Janani L, Mohamadi R, Mazaherinezhad A, Rafiei N. Educational ranking model of faculties in Iranian universities of medical sciences. JMED 2024; 17 (55) :120-128
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1635-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1635-en.html
Associate Professor, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (182 Views)
Background & Objective: It is crucial to have a transparent and comprehensive tool in place to ensure accurate information on the educational performance of faculties. With this in mind, the aim of this study was to develop a model for ranking the educational performance of faculties in Iranian medical universities.
Material & Methods: This study involved the development of an educational ranking tool for the faculties, which was carried out in 4 stages: compilation of indicators, conducting a focus group discussion, utilizing the Delphi technique, and finally consulting with an expert panel. In the given process, the tool's primary indicators were gathered based on various factors, such as the "educational ranking of medical sciences universities," the "ranking of educational services of universities," and the “postgraduate education performance evaluation system in medical sciences universities." These indicators were designed over a course of 17 sessions. After compiling the primary indicators, the indicators were thoroughly reviewed in four sessions in the presence of educational experts. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was employed, and eight expert panel meetings were held to finalize the indicators and areas, the weight of each indicator and domain, data collection methods, and the method of ranking the faculties. Finally, a scoring guide was prepared for all criteria to ensure a fair and objective evaluation process.
Results: The educational ranking model of faculties was designed to evaluate three educational fields - "educational services", "postgraduate education", and "the educational field". The educational field was assessed based on 16 indicators in five areas, including education development, governance, education management, quality development of education, and moving in line with the comprehensive scientific map of the country. These indicators were carefully chosen to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the faculties' educational excellence. The educational services sector has developed 11 checklists across five key areas: objective factors, reliability, accountability and responsibility, assurance, and empathy. Additionally, the evaluation of postgraduate education performance includes 36 indicators across seven areas: educational program, student evaluation, students, faculty members, educational resources, program evaluation, and senior and executive management.
Conclusion: An educational ranking tool has been developed for faculties in medical science universities. This tool evaluates all educational fields of faculties, including educational services, postgraduate education, and the educational field. It also offers the possibility of comparing faculties within a university. The use of this ranking model can lead to improvements in both quantitative and qualitative educational indicators and ultimately improve the educational rank of the university among other medical science universities.
Material & Methods: This study involved the development of an educational ranking tool for the faculties, which was carried out in 4 stages: compilation of indicators, conducting a focus group discussion, utilizing the Delphi technique, and finally consulting with an expert panel. In the given process, the tool's primary indicators were gathered based on various factors, such as the "educational ranking of medical sciences universities," the "ranking of educational services of universities," and the “postgraduate education performance evaluation system in medical sciences universities." These indicators were designed over a course of 17 sessions. After compiling the primary indicators, the indicators were thoroughly reviewed in four sessions in the presence of educational experts. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was employed, and eight expert panel meetings were held to finalize the indicators and areas, the weight of each indicator and domain, data collection methods, and the method of ranking the faculties. Finally, a scoring guide was prepared for all criteria to ensure a fair and objective evaluation process.
Results: The educational ranking model of faculties was designed to evaluate three educational fields - "educational services", "postgraduate education", and "the educational field". The educational field was assessed based on 16 indicators in five areas, including education development, governance, education management, quality development of education, and moving in line with the comprehensive scientific map of the country. These indicators were carefully chosen to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the faculties' educational excellence. The educational services sector has developed 11 checklists across five key areas: objective factors, reliability, accountability and responsibility, assurance, and empathy. Additionally, the evaluation of postgraduate education performance includes 36 indicators across seven areas: educational program, student evaluation, students, faculty members, educational resources, program evaluation, and senior and executive management.
Conclusion: An educational ranking tool has been developed for faculties in medical science universities. This tool evaluates all educational fields of faculties, including educational services, postgraduate education, and the educational field. It also offers the possibility of comparing faculties within a university. The use of this ranking model can lead to improvements in both quantitative and qualitative educational indicators and ultimately improve the educational rank of the university among other medical science universities.
Keywords: educational ranking, university, educational services, graduate education, postgraduate education, educational field
Article Type : Brief Report |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2022/06/20 | Accepted: 2024/03/14 | Published: 2024/09/10
Received: 2022/06/20 | Accepted: 2024/03/14 | Published: 2024/09/10
References
1. Dugerdil A, Sponagel L, Babington-Ashaye A, Flahault A. Rethinking international university ranking systems in the context of academic public health. International Journal of Public Health. 2022;67:1605252. [DOI]
2. See KF, Ng YC, Yu MM. An alternative assessment approach to national higher education system evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2022;94:102124. [DOI]
3. Kaidesoja T. A theoretical framework for explaining the paradox of university rankings. Social Science Information. 2022;61(1):128-53. [DOI]
4. Osareh F, Afifian F, Nourmohammadi HA. Designing a conceptual and operational model for scientific evaluation and ranking of educational departments of humanities in universities and institutes of higher education in Iran. Scientometrics Research Journal. 2019; 5(1):23-46. [DOI]
5. Dugerdil A, Sponagel L, Babington-Ashaye A, Flahault A. International university ranking systems and their relevance for the medical and health sciences-a scoping review. International Journal of Higher Education. 2022;11(5):102-33. [DOI]
6. Dowsett L. Global university rankings and strategic planning: a case study of Australian institutional performance. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management. 2020;42(4):478-94. [DOI]
7. Uslu B. A path for ranking success: what does the expanded indicator-set of international university rankings suggest? Higher Education. 2020; 80(5):949-72. [DOI]
8. Vernon MM, Balas EA, Momani S. Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;7:13(3):e0193762. [DOI]
9. Bautista-Puig N, Orduña-Malea E, Perez-Esparrells C. Enhancing sustainable development goals or promoting universities? An analysis of the times higher education impact rankings. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2022;23(8):211-31. [DOI]
10. Hagh doost A, Ranjbar H, Shoughi Shafagh Aria F, Momtaz manesh N, et al. Ranking of universities of medical sciences based on their educational activities: setting indicators. Teb Tazkiyeh. 2010; 19(1): 65-72. [DOI]
11. Mohammadi A, Mojtahedzadeh R, Karimi A. Ranking of Sciences and Universities of Medical Sciences: Introducing the best patterns in the country,2005. Teb Tazkiyeh. 2006;15(3,4):65-73. [DOI]
12. Hagh doost A, Ranjbar H, Shoughi Shafagh Aria F, Larijani B, Yazdani S. Ranking of educational system in universities of medical sciences & health services in Iran, 2015. Tehran: Educational Deputy of Ministry of Health and Medical Education, 2015. [Article]
13. Ershad SR, Bahaaldini K, Jahani Y, et al. Educational ranking of the Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences 2019-2020:(Rad 3).
14. Ahmadi S. Ranking of educational services. Tehran: Educational Service Center, Educational Deputy of Ministry of Health and Medical Education, 2014.
15. Tabatabaei Z, Darabi Mahbob M. Performance evaluation system of postgraduate level in universities of medical sciences & health services in Iran. Mashhad: Mashhad University of Medical Sciences; 2015.
16. Gharibi F, Tabrizi JS. Development of an accreditation model for health education and promotion programs in the Iranian primary healthcare system: a Delphi study. Health Promotion Perspectives. 2018;8(2):155. [DOI]
17. Gavarskhar F, Matlabi H, Gharibi F. An Iranian model for elderly care in residential long-term care institutions: A Delphi-based study. Middle East Journal of Rehabilitation and Health Studies. 2021;8(3):e112944. [DOI]
18. Safari Farfar R, Abolghasemi M, Ferasatkhah M, Nave Ebrahim A. Designing a conceptual framework for ranking the educational groups in Iranian public universities. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies. 2018;8(21):191-225. [DOI]
19. Galleli B, Teles NE, Santos JA, Freitas-Martins MS, Hourneaux Junior F. Sustainability university rankings: a comparative analysis of UI green metric and the times higher education world university rankings. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2022;23(2):404-25. [DOI]
20. Veidemane A. Education for sustainable development in higher education rankings: Challenges and opportunities for developing internationally comparable indicators. Sustainability. 2022;14(9):5102. [DOI]
21. Fernandes JO, Singh B. Accreditation and ranking of higher education institutions (HEIs): review, observations and recommendations for the Indian higher education system. The TQM Journal. 2022;34(5):1013-38. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
