Regular Course Evaluations to Internalize Best Practices into the Learning Environment.

Abstract

Regular course evaluation, based on the feedback obtained from students, is an important evidencebased approach to improve quality in the higher education system, which is important for curricular changes or modifications. The aim of the course evaluation surveys is to identify strengths and weaknesses of different courses in the MBBS degree program and to assess the possibility of internalizing good practices to improve the courses. Three Google Form based course evaluations were conducted centrally through the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), Faculty of Medicine (FoM), University of Ruhuna (UoR). The Heads of three departments and students of three batches from preclinical, para clinical and clinical phases were separately invited for course evaluations immediately after their main examinations conducted from May 2023 to March 2024 in the FoM, UoR. The Faculty Board approved a self-administered questionnaire, which was used for data collection, consisting of curriculum content, assessments, learning environment and facilities. The pre-clinical department, having the highest response rate at 52.4%, was followed by the clinical department at 40.6%, and the para-clinical department at 28.5%. Most of the students across all departments felt that the areas covered in the curriculum were adequate, with pre-clinical (97.9%), para-clinical (81.1%), and clinical (97.2%) departments receiving positive feedback. The number of lectures delivered to cover the curriculum was also well-received, with over 90% of students in each department finding it adequate. The course evaluation highlights different needs and feedback across pre-clinical, para-clinical, and clinical phases. In the pre-clinical phase, students find the curriculum is generally adequate. In the para-clinical curriculum, students find excessive content and insufficient practical focus. In the clinical phase, the course evaluation received good responses; however, students recommended integrating more topics and clinical exposure. The areas identified through students‘ feedback were directed to the departments for necessary measures to improve the courses.