‫بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم‬

Population Covered by Donor

ADB 1%
USAID 34%

Uncovered
23%
WB 22%

EC 18%

Others
2%
 Action Plan for
Evaluation and
Implementation of Curriculum
Development in KMU
 Evaluation of Practical work in
Biochemistry Department
By :
Assistant Prof. Wasima Sharifi
Department of Bio-Chemistry, KMU
December 2006
 Background
 Paraclinic subjects are taught in PCB, 1st
and 2nd class completely , and beside that
some subjects in grade 3rd, 4th, and 5th
are also included.
 Practical work is an important part of
teaching method in Paraclinic (40%)
 Evaluation is necessary for feedback for
teachers and future planning
Practical works and Instruments
 Using Microscopes:  Anatomy Modules:
 Biology  Anatomy
 Parasitological  Embryology
 Pathology  Forensic Medicine
 Histology
 Microbiology  Others:
 Physiology
 Chemistry:  Pharmacology
 Chemistry  Public health
 Biochemistry  Physics
Practical work room.
Anatomy
Models
Practical work room.
 Strengths
 EDC/JICA
 Initiation of teachers for the task
 Better background for future Planning

Weaknesses
 Absence of evaluation experience
 Difficulty of skill evaluation fact
 Opportunities
 Assistance of JICA
 Eager for better Education system in KMU
 A comprehensive and scientific planning
for future

Threats
 Sustainability of the program?
 Miss collection and miss interpretation
 Goal

 Improvement of teaching system

Objectives
 Standardization of teaching method
 Strengthening of weak points
 Methods
 Time:  Items in the questionnaire
 May 2007  Punctuality
 Mid semester, 2 weeks  Skill
 Class 2nd students  Knowledge
 Random 20 students  General impression
 Distribution, collection  Scoring:
and analysis:  Satisfactory, fair and not fair
 Dr Sharifi, Prof Anwar,  Percentage
Prof Ahmadzai
Arigato Gozaimasu

Thank you
Sharifi
 Evaluation of Paraclinic
lecturers
By:
Associated Prof. Ehsanullah Alimi MD
Head, Department of Forensic Medicine
December 2006
 Introduction
 Feedback by students for standardization
of education
 Total no. of lecturers in KMU217
 Clinic 151
 Paraclinic 66
 Total no. of departments 33
 Clinic 19
 Paraclinic 14
 Introduction (cont.)

 Criteria for selection of lecturers

 MD and higher degrees
 75% Scoring in undergraduate period
 No failure records in undergraduate period
 Age ( < 35 )
 Recommendation by related Department
 Academic entrance exam
 Approval of Academic council of KMU
 Assignment by MOHE
 Current Situation

 EDC has already collected evaluation data

for all lecturers in August 2006
 The data has not been analyzed because
of unknown reason
 Weaknesses

 Some negative reaction from lecturers

 Absence of evaluation experience
 Students will evaluate lecturers in views of
reputation (e.g. Strictness will be
connected to lower evaluation)
 Goal
 Improvement of teaching system

Objectives
 Standardization of teaching method
 Strengthening of lecturers’ weak points
 Motivation of lecturers
 Capacity building for lecturers
 Methods
 Modification of the current questionnaire
 Every end of semester
 Scoring (Good, Fair and not fair)
 Calculation of percentage
 Sampling of students
 Sampling method:
 30 students, randomized
Example of a Lecture
 Implementation Processes

 3 groups of 10 students will be selected

arbitrarily from 100 2nd class students
 10 lecturers in 4 departments (biochem,
physio, microbio, and pathology) will be
evaluated
 Resources
 Personnel:
 EDC evaluation committee and administration
 Academic Vice Chancellor
 Students
 Time:
 Collection: One week in the end of each semester
(July 2007)
 Analysis: Quantitative (percentage) by Drs. Alimi,
Stanikzai, and Anwar.
 Dr. Alimi will report the result to the chancellor, EDC
and JICA project office in August 2007
 Suggestion

 All lecturers should be evaluated every

year regularly
 Students manual for evaluation
Arigato Gozaimasu

Thank you
Alimi
 Assessment of student

By:
Prof. Mohammad Afzal Anwar MD
Head, Department of Histology
December 2006
 Introduction
 Total no. of students 2745
 Faculties 4
 Curative
 Pediatric
 Stomatology
 Nursing
 Condition to sit in an examination
 Student attendance 75%
Evaluation of students in end of
semester

Final Examination

Theoretical
Practical Examination
Examination
(20%)
(80%)
 Current Status

 Different departments have different

formats of examination papers
 Combination of MCQs, SAQs, Essays, etc
 Distribution of marks to different sections
 Different departments show different
failure rates of students
Result of Final Examination
100 (absolute score)

Succeeded Students

50 (in old system)

Failed Students

0
Current Failed Student

System
Used for
subject subject subject
2nd Class
or Upper
Failed Student
Second Chance
(Not the (next year)

Credit
System) subject subject

Failed Student
Third chance
(next year)
Result of Final Examination
100 (absolute score)

Succeeded Students

55% in credit system

Failed Students

0
 Introduction (cont.)

 Credit system and conditions:

 Currently used for PCB and 1st class
 One chance for exam
 If failed, must take tutorial
 Pass score for a subject in credit system is 55
 The average of all subject scores for credit
system is 60
 Goal
 Improvement of examination system

Objectives
 Standardization of teaching method
 Detection of examination weak points
 Improvement of questioning system
 Methods

 Collection of papers from different

departments
 Decide which method was used for each
paper (MCQ, SAQ, Essay, etc)
 Collection of data
 How many students failed
 How marks were decided for each question
 Resources

 Personnel:
 Dr. Anwar
 Examination committee
 KMU administration
 Time:
 End of each semester
Arigato Gozaimasu

Thank you
Prof Anwar
 Evaluation for Practical works in
Clinical Education
By:
Assistant Prof. Ghulam Sakhi Rawan MD
Department of Pediatrics, Maiwand Hospital
December 2006
 Background
 Clinical Practical works are taught in class 3rd,
4th, 5th, and house job (internship)
 Practical work is an important part of teaching
method in clinic (40%)
 Evaluation is necessary for feedback for teachers
and future planning
 practical works:
 Students 4 hours/day
 House job 7 hours/day for a year
Practical works and Instruments

 class 3rd:
 Physical examination
 Thermometer
 Sphygmomanometer
 Stethoscope
 Tongue depressor
 Performing IM,SC and IV Injections
 Practical works and Instruments
(cont.)

 Class 4th :
 Physical examination
 Thermometer
 Sphygmomanometer
 Stethoscope
 Fetoscope
 NG and rectal tubes and folly catheter
 Reading X-Ray films
 History taking
 Practical works and Instruments
(cont.)

 Class 5th :
 Otoscope
 Ophthalmoscope
 Laryngoscope
 Bronchoscope
 Casting
 Traction and fixation of fractures
 Punctures
 History taking
 Introduction of diseases
 Practical works and Instruments
(cont.)

Note: Students are able to do some practical

works by themselves but they will only
observe other works.
 House Job:
 Practical works as junior assistant/every dept.
 Skin suturing
 Dressing
 Current Status
 Some lecturers lack enough skills to
teach
 Some lecturers are not punctual
 Goal
 Improvement of Practical works in Clinical
Education

Objectives
 Standardization of practical works
 Strengthening of weak points in clinical
works
 Methods
 Who: Dr. Rawan
 To whom: 5th class students, 10 groups
 When: March-June 2007
 How:
 Interview with students
 Observation by Dr. Rawan
 Methods (cont.)

 Format of interview questions

 Teachers  Students
 Punctuality  Attendance

 Attitude  Interest
 Skill  Knowledge
 Knowledge  Attitude
 Appearance  skills
Arigato Gozaimasu

Thank you
Assistant Prof. Rawan