Evaluation of Teaching and Learning Outcomes in Health Systems Management Studies, the Case of Israel: Ideal Versus Actual

  • Rachel Nissanholtz-GannotEmail author
  • Nitza Davidovitch
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


The focus of this chapter is the evaluation of a Health Management Systems program, stressing the paradigmatic difference between the teaching-centered approach and the learning-centered approach, with an emphasis on the formulation of learning outcomes. In the current study, we examine the contribution of various academic domains and learning skills to the preparation of undergraduate research papers (final paper and seminar) that reflect the contents and skills acquired by students throughout their undergraduate studies. In addition, we examined the relationship between personal variables (gender, age, country of birth, year of immigration), family variables (marital status, number of children), and occupational variables (job in the healthcare system, numbers of years on the job, and extent of position) – and students’ satisfaction with the contents and skills they acquired. The research population consisted of 113 students of health systems management at Ariel University, who completed their undergraduate studies in 2016.

We found significant differences between critical thinking skills and taking responsibility; significant differences were also found between research capabilities and visual and verbal presentation, as well as skills of taking responsibility and learning. Furthermore, the respondents displayed relatively high satisfaction with their academic studies. Methodology and health courses were found to have a unique and significant contribution to explaining general satisfaction. The most significant finding is the high satisfaction found, as well as the high congruence between the primary domains in the curriculum and the contribution of studies to preparation of the final paper and seminar. The skills that the curriculum’s policymakers intended to develop indeed assisted the students in practice. The research results are important due to the unsettling data indicating a considerable drop in university registrations in Israel and elsewhere, with the younger generation attributing increasingly less importance to the role of universities in shaping their personal and professional future.

This case study of Ariel University, which was established in 1982 as a college and became a university in 2012, emphasizes characteristic trends among academic institutions around the world, where higher education is becoming more accessible to different populations. Ariel University is attentive to contemporary “voices” calling for more learning-centered teaching. The trend of learning-centered teaching is receiving increasing attention in the USA as well, a focus called for specifically by STEM disciplines. In the current case study, this approach to teaching is implemented in fields that have not previously done so, such as healthcare studies, which are more multidisciplinary by nature.


Evaluation Learning outcomes Health Higher education 


  1. Barak, Azy, and Storm A. King. 2004. The two faces of the Internet: Introduction to the special issue on the Internet and sexuality. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 3 (4): 517–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, Robert B., and John Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning. Change 27: 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botzer and Barzilai. 2011. Implemented in the Technion’s faculty workshop program, “From teaching targets to effective teaching”.תכנון-קורס-בגישה-ממוקדת-למידה.pdf.
  4. BrckaLorenz, Allison, Heather Haeger, Jennifer Nailos, and Karyn Rabourn. 2013. Student perspectives on the importance and use of technology in learning. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Retrieved from
  5. Council for Higher Education. 2012. Budgeting model of Israel’s higher education system. Planning and Budgeting Committee. Jerusalem, February pp. 20–33. [Hebrew].
  6. Davidovitch, Nitza. 2013. Learning-centered teaching and backward course design – From transferring knowledge to teaching skills. Journal of International Education Research 9 (4): 329–338. ISSN: 2158-0979.Google Scholar
  7. Davidovitch, Nitza, and B.R. Levy. 2016. The learning-centered approach in higher education. Kasmera’ Journal 44 (2.) ISSN: 0075-5222.Google Scholar
  8. Davidovitch, Nitza, and Zvi Shiller. 2016. Skill-based teaching: Teaching robotics and mechatronics to mechanical engineers. American Journal of Engineering Education 7 (1): 29–36.Google Scholar
  9. Eberly, Mary B., Sarah E. Newton, and Robert A. Wiggins. 2001. The syllabus as a tool for student-centered learning. The Journal of General Education 50: 56–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gehart, Diane. 2011. The core competencies and MFT education: Practical aspects of transitioning to a learning-centered, outcome-based pedagogy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 37: 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harpe, Spencer E., Lisa B. Phipps, and Maryam S. Alowayesh. 2012. Effects of a learning-centered approach to assessment on students’ attitudes towards and knowledge of statistics. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4: 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, Steve. 2002. The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from
  13. Kazley, Abby S., et al. 2013. Understanding the use of educational technology among faculty, staff, and students at a medical university. TechTrends 57 (2): 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, James M., and Deanna M. Anderson. 2004. A practitioner’s guide to a learning-centered co-curricular activities program. College Student Affairs Journal 24: 91–100.Google Scholar
  15. Kuh, George D., et al. 1991. Involving colleges – Successful approaches to fostering student learning & development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Kuh, George D., Jillian Kinzie, John H. Schuh, and Elizabeth Whitt. 2010. Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter, 579–582. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Kulik, James A., Chen-Lin C. Kulik, and Peter Cohen. 1980. Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research 50: 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKeachie, Wilbert J. 1990. Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Phipps, Ronald, and Jamie Merisotis. 1999. What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education, 49–50. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.Google Scholar
  20. Reynolds, Jim. 2000. Learning-centered learning: Theory into practice. Inquiry 5: 1–9.Google Scholar
  21. Rogoff, Barbara. 1994. Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity 1: 209–229.Google Scholar
  22. Seel, Norbert M. 2003. Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning 1: 59–85.Google Scholar
  23. Stage, Frances K., Patricia A. Muller, Jillian Kinzie and Ada Simmons. 1998. Creating learning centered classrooms. What does learning theory have to say? ERIC Digest. Retrieved from
  24. Van der Hijden, P. (2012). Student mobility in Europe: Recent yrends and implications of fata) pp. 377–386). In: P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu. & L. Wilson (Eds.). European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Wagner, E. B., & McCombs, B. L. (1995). Learner centered psychological principles in practice: Designs for distance education. Educational Technology, 35: 32–35.Google Scholar
  26. Yemini, Miri, and Yossi Ben-Artzi. 2013. Implementation of the Bologna process in Israel’s system of higher education. Dapim 55: 177–197. [Hebrew].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ariel UniversityArielIsrael

Personalised recommendations