Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2017 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Polaz, Débora Cabral Nunes
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Oliveira, Raquel Aparecida de |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Educação nas Profissões da Saúde
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Ciências Médicas e da Saúde
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/19930
|
Resumo: |
Introduction: The Nursing Course, when assuming the educational proposal in active methodologies, faces the continuous challenge of conducting an evaluation of the teaching/learning process consistent with the assumptions that guide these methodologies. In this context, the formative assessment is carried out through a form with specific criteria, filled in by both students and teachers.Purposes: To analyze forms and evaluation criteria from the tutoring sessions; identify student and teacher perception of their functionality and adequacy needs, discuss with them the use of the forms and evaluation criteria and propose adjustments. Method: An exploratory, descriptive study with a qualitative approach carried out at PUC/SP Nursing Course. The first stage consisted of questionnaires for students and teachers, composedofopen-ended and closed-ended Likert Scale questions. The second stage was carried out with two focus groups: the first one comprising the teachers and the second one, students from years 1 to 3, with the purpose of delivering feedback on the first stage, as well as discussion and adjustment suggestions for the form. Results: Seven (77.7%) teachers and 32 (36.3%) students participated in the first stage; questionnaires were considered reliable (Cronbach's Alpha was 0.9096 and 0.8945 for students and teachers respectively). Gaps were identified in the contents of the form and applicability, requiring clarity and objectivity in the evaluation criteria and insufficient time and space for filling in the form. Three students and five teachers participated in the 2nd stage. The results of the 1st stage were validated in the 2nd stage and the suggestions outlined the adequacy of the evaluation instrument. Conclusion: This study allowed to expand the understanding and the debate about the assessment, showed the importance of investing in teacher development and student knowledge in the process of formative assessment |
