Continuous efforts are made by many educational researchers and quality experts to measure Program learning outcomes (PLO) by using direct and indirect methods in medical education. To overcome the challenges and limitations in the measurement of PLO, educational researchers use different sources of data to increase the probability that the measured value represents the accurate scenario. In the recent past, education researchers showed more interest in CCEAS. It emerged from the fact that student learning is assessed all the time in the courses to move ahead in the program. Many higher education institutions (HEI) and accreditation bodies recommend the course-embedded assessment method to measure PLO. However, the HEI uses randomization method to embed the course assessments on the PLO. In all these methods, the measurement of PLO is analyzed to improve the quality of the program than focusing on improving the learners in the program. In the perspective of internal quality assurance, the measurement of PLO is not only the retrospective analysis of the learner’s exit the program; rather it should identify the “outcome gap” in the learners of all the phases in the program. Finally, the improvisation must benefit the learners entering the phase as well as the learner’s progress to the next phase. The best fitting answer will be “implementation of CCEAS to measure the PLO, and it acts as a magnifying lens to visualize the microenvironment (courses and learners) in the program and analyze the standard of learning and teaching to improve the overall performance of all the learners and program (Assurance of learning (AOL))”. However, the importance of macro-level measurement of PLO cannot be negated because it acts as a validation of what is measured and implemented at the micro-level (courses level).
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language