Document Type : Original Article


1 University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia

2 Department of Pathology, Centre of major burn and traumatology, Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia

3 University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia;



Introduction: The evaluation of programs in faculties of medicine enables them to adequately reach their mission objectives, and social responsibilities and to correct their potential lacune. Few
publications have described the process of internal evaluation of a program performed by the organizational members. The authors aimed to describe a practical method called the four-axis method to assess curriculum using a practical example.
Methods: The authors performed a descriptive study, highlighting the application of a particular method of evaluation of a program called the four-axis method. It consisted of the assessment of the pedagogical alignment [1], teaching techniques and evaluation tests [2], students’ viewpoints and needs [3], and the teachers’ opinions and needs [4]. To contextualize this method, the authors described a practical experience of the assessment of a multidisciplinary theme (theme 16), which is taught during the second year of medical education. Was performed the evaluation from January 2020 to January 2021. The population studied consisted of the tutors implicated in the teaching of the theme and the students in the second year of medical education who accepted to answer the satisfaction questionnaires. The students and tutors who did not fill out the questionnaires were excluded. No statistical tests were needed because of the descriptive nature of the study.
Results: The most relevant results highlighted that 48.4% of the teachers did not systematically use bioclinical cases involving interactions between students; also, 42.4% of the students believed
that the teaching sessions didn’t introduce practical examples giving rise to interactions between them. Therefore, the 4-axisbased analysis indicated that weaknesses were mostly attributed
to the lack of homogeneity in the teaching methods and techniques which showed the teachers’ difficulties in integrating clinical data into their teaching so that they can help the students to assimilate the fundamental data.
Conclusion: The authors’ used a particular approach since it focused both on an objective evaluation of the teaching methods and the evaluation tests and the students’ and teachers’ viewpoints and needs. The major limitation of this approach was the fact that it
could not integrate the educational environment that could impact the students’ performances.