MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7045773313

The Bachelor of Health Science Online Program: a Look at Program Development Through the Eye of the Curriculum Committee Members

2019· dissertation· en· W7045773313 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2019
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHigher Education Learning Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBachelorCurriculumCurriculum developmentPopularityHealth sciencePerceptionProfessional developmentProgram evaluation
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Delivery of an online education model is a trend that is increasing in popularity in today’s day and age. Although not a recent phenomenon, the technological development within the world of distance education would make it appear as so (McGorry, 2003). Due to the costly expense of university programs and the nature of full-time studies, many students are unable to participate in the traditional in-house university experience (Rasmussen, Northrup & Colson, 2016). Because of this, a large demographic lacks the ability to gain acceptance into professional schools, specifically in health related fields. Offering an online health studies’ program would eliminate this barrier. 
\nWhen developing an online undergraduate program in health studies, it is imperative to maintain a high degree of academic quality. The purpose of this study was to examine the influences of the curriculum on the development of Bachelor of Health Science (BHSc(H)) online program at Queen’s University, through the eye of the curriculum committee members. 
\nEmploying a phenomenological inquiry methodology, data was collected through semi-structured interviews with a total of 14 participants who were members of the curriculum committee. The data was transcribed, analyzed and coded. This analysis revealed four major themes: program design, role of the curriculum committee in the program, online program development and innovation, and course development. Differences in the participants’ perceptions tended to reflect the varying roles they played in the development of the program.
\nThe main influences on the program design included; the use of a backward design model in which assessments were at the forefront of course development and the intricate mapping of competencies and outcomes. The backward design model was considered to be a very effective approach to development of each individual course and set the stage for the high academic quality of the program. In addition, the unique competency-based framework upon which the program is built allowed the developers of the BHSc(H) program to create something innovative and new to the world of online learning across Canadian universities. Competency-based education is not commonly found at the undergraduate level and will give the successful BHSc(H) program graduates an edge above their peers in postgraduate studies in the healthcare field. 
\nDespite the challenges faced by the program from the get go; fighting against the stigma of online learning, developing traditional hands on assessments in an online format and convincing the graduate schools of the academic quality of the four year online degree, the program development was thorough, rigorous and academically sound. Participants concluded their interviews by outlining their thoughts on the potential success of the program to which they stated that the BHSc(H) program has the potential to be a highly successful route to post graduate studies and to shape the way for future online programs. This program design model might well lead the way for the development of future online programs at Queen’s and across the country.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,613
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,002
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0030,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,321
Écart entre enseignants0,304 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Même sujetHigher Education Learning PracticesTravaux en français237 207