The questionnaires were distributed amongst 36 participants. Twenty seven participants responded to the questionnaires including 12 males (44.4%) and 15 females (55.6%). In the second phase, 13 students were interviewed in order to achieve data saturation.
Data analysis indicated that the students had emphasis on dormitory status, reception, service, recreational-sports facilities, the test questions correction, and the test implementation manner. Therefore, the experiences of the participants were classified into the three general themes, including the scientific level of questions (3 themes and 6 sub themes, Table 1), program and the state of implementation of the tests (3 themes and 6 sub themes, Table2) and welfare (5 themes and 10 sub themes, Table 3).
The participants’ suggestions for better implementation of Olympiads were categorized into four main categories (test implementation, lateral programs, amenities and announcing the results). Students’ suggestion in test implementation category were: it is better to hold the Olympics at different educational levels, expanding the area of the Olympiad in the other fields such as laboratory sciences will provide a great opportunity for further interaction between the diagnosis and treatment groups,considering different fields of students and compare them with each other within the same field and It would have existed schedule appropriate for exam days and the exams do not interfere with the university. In the lateral programs category, students suggested that should be considered creational facilities for the leisure time of the participants and Workshops should be held for participants during the test days. In the Facilities category, Student recommended that the place of residence of participants should be in places near to the city and online resources should be provided for them, and informing should be appropriate for these resources using. In the results announcements category student recommended; Student rankings should be announced at the end of the Olympiad and the test results should be announced individually to each university.
In addition, the experiences of the students participated in the Medical Olympiad for university students were categorized into two main teams including, restrictive and motivating factors as followings:
Restrictive factor: The main restrictive factors based on the participants’ statements, including time consuming, lake attention to the free time of participants in Olympiad, and inaccessibility to academic supervisors. For example, participant No.3 asserted: “There was a long interruption between the morning and evening exam.” On this case, participant No.5 says:” generally, programmers had been planned for the examinations, and we did not have a special program at leisure. Also participant No.8 asserted: “There were no sports facilities. The accessibility to supervisors was difficult because of the inappropriate dormitories location.” And participant No.5 believed that:” Officials can plan workshops for different subjects like critical thinking, team working, and communication skill during the holding of the Olympiad in order to meet students from different faculties and strengthen these skills. The participant No.8 opinion was “Student from different faculties had been inhabited in separate dormitory and we can’t meet them in the free time.
Motivating factor: The main motivating factors based on participant statements were respect to student, welfare falsities, regulate and peacefulness. In this case, participant No.7 says, “The dormitory welcoming committee had a good behavior. “Also, participant No.9 statements,” The authorities have behaved nicely in the first encounter. And, participant No.10 asserted:” The stationery, tables and chairs were proper for the test.” And also, participant No.13 believed that:” Slow music playback had a positive effect at the time of the entrance and before the start of exams.