ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Original Research

Authors

Sobhaninejad   M. (1 )
Ahmadian   M. (* )






(* ) Human Sciences Faculty, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
(1 ) Educational Sciences Department, Human Sciences Faculty, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Human Sciences Faculty, Shahed University, Opposite the Holy Shrine of Imam Khomeini, Beginning of Persian Gulf Highway, Tehran, Iran. Post Box: 18155-159. Postal Code: 3319118651
Phone: +982155054977
Fax: +9851212444
ahmadian.nan@gmail.com

Article History

Received:  February  22, 2013
Accepted:  September 13, 2013
ePublished:  March 17, 2014

BRIEF TEXT


Medical universities are responsible to train professional and committed Physicians [1]. Establishment of a proper evaluating system is necessary to improve quality of training, [2]. As the university teachers are the main educational factor, evaluation of their performance is the proper qualitative way [3, 4]. Curriculum is effective on educational activities and contains outlines, temporal plan and aims [5, 6]. Curriculum, may affect performance when it is considered as political and cultural structure [7]. Three dimensions were assumed in medical education curriculum [8]. There is an increase at integration of interpersonal and biomedical skills that encourages researches on students' perceptions of teaching [9, 10].

According to researches, five domains of interaction were identified including ‘the university teacher’s interaction with student’, ‘the university teacher’s interaction with patient’, ‘the university teacher’s interaction with colleague’, ‘the university teacher’s interaction with society’ and ‘the university teacher’s interaction with herself’ [11]. Medical training needs proper communication skills towards the patient, but, according to researches, doctors have poor general communication skills [12, 13]. Working with other colleagues can affect the doctor’s behavior [14]. Communication of the university teacher with herself and with society leads to morally good interactions [15]. ...[16, 17].

The aim of this study was to identify and rank the university teacher’s interaction in curriculum of theoretical medical courses.

The method is descriptive-survey.

The extern and intern medical students of Shahed University were studied during 2012-13.

Using Cochran formula, 120 persons were considered. 123 persons out of 175 medical students of the extern and intern courses were selected, using simple random sampling method. 86 (69.9%) questionnaires were returned.

A questionnaire containing 57 confirmed items was provided to examine theoretical advises, statements, recommendations, and theoretical courses. Formal and content validity of the questionnaire were confirmed by two academic experts. Reliability of 5 dimensions of the questionnaire was estimated 0.88 to 0.96 using Cronbach's alpha coefficient in the range of. 5 dimensions of the questionnaire were modes of the university teacher’s interaction with ‘student’ (15 questions), ‘patient’ (14 questions), ‘colleague’ (7 questions), ‘society’ (9 questions) and ‘him/herself’ (12 questions) , and The answers were set from “very low” (1 score) to “very high” (5 scores) using Likert scale. Data were analyzed by SPSS 18 software using One-sample T (to compare the average of variables with the average of society), Independent-T (to compare mean of the two-independent groups), ANOVA (to compare mean of the groups) and Friedman (to prioritize the dimensions) tests.

In ‘mode of the university teacher’s interaction with student’, students ‘development of practical skills preparation, ‘attention to the diversity of the students ‘in learning in his/her teaching’ and ‘attention to all the proposed answers by a student’ components had the highest significant level among 11 significant components, respectively. In ‘mode of the lecturer’s interaction with patient’, ‘dedication to the patient’s privacy and avoid to use non-respectful words’, ‘attention to the necessity of the establishment equality among patient’ and ‘order to have honesty in dealing with patients’ components had the highest significant level among 11 significant components, respectively. In ‘mode of the university teacher’s interaction with colleague’, ‘attention to the friendly communication with her colleagues’, ‘effort to aid her colleagues to solve business problems’ and ‘attention to the necessity of teamwork and collaboration with colleagues’ components had the highest significant level among 7 significant components, respectively. In ‘mode of the university teacher’s interaction with society’, ‘attention to keep dignity, reputation and trust of the people to her and the medical society’, ‘avoidance of the business manner ethics’ and ‘efforts to establish desirable social relationships with people’ components had the highest significant level among 9 significant components, respectively. In ‘mode of the university teacher’s interaction with herself’, ‘attention to coordinating promotion of his professional knowledge, insight and skills’, ‘commitment to continuous adherence to humanities and ethical standards in professional status’ and ‘conscientiousness and consciousness’ components had the highest significant level among 10 significant components, respectively. From the students’ viewpoint, there was only a significant difference in ‘mode of the university teacher’s interaction with patient’ according to the students’ sex and educational course, and men and extern students had a higher average. 22 to 24 years old students considered the university teacher’s interaction with patient more favorable than 24 to 26 years old students; also students at fourth, fifth and sixth academic year considered the university teacher’s interaction with patient more favorable than students at seventh academic year. Students at sixth academic year considered the university teacher’s interaction with society more favorable than students at seventh academic year. 22 to 24 years old students and 24 to 26 years old considered the university teacher’s interaction with him/herself more favorable than 22 years old students ; also students at sixth academic year considered the university teacher’s interaction with him/herself more favorable than students at fourth, seventh and eighth academic years.

Non-declared

It is suggested that these components would be evaluated in other medical universities or among university teachers, patients, colleagues of medical university teachers, and society.

Non-declared

From the students’ viewpoints, ‘mode of the university teacher’s interaction with colleague’ was the first priority, and mode of the university teacher’s interaction with herself, patient, society and students were the next priorities, respectively.

The author wishes to acknowledge the students who participated in this study.

Non-declared

Non-declared

Non-declared

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Yamani N, Liyaghatdar MJ, Changiz T, Adibi P. How do medical students learn professionalism during clinical education? A qualitative study of faculty members' and interns' experiences. Iranian J Med Educ. 2009;9(4):382-95. [Persian]
[2]Dehghani Poudeh M, Shams B, Ashourioun V, Esmaili A, Asilian A, Nasri P, Hoseini M. Internal assessment of Isfahan general medicine curriculum based on basic standards of ministry of health and medical education: a model for evaluation and analysis of results. Iranian J Med Educ. 2010;10(5):552-65. [Persian]
[3]Sanagu A, Jouybari L. The viewpoint and experiences of students about their evaluation from professor in the theoretical lessons at Golestan University. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2010;7(1):57-69. [Persian]
[4]Rahimi M, Zarvaj Hoseyni R, Darabiyan M, Taheriyan AA, Khosravi A. The evaluation of professors by students. A comprehensive approach. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2012;9(1):34-45. [Persian]
[5]Ebrahimi Qavam S. Applying learning theories on curriculum planning. Tehran: Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch; 2009. [Persian]
[6]Talebzadeh NM, Mosapour N, Hatami F. The status of critical thinking in implemented curriculum at secondary level. J Curriculum Stud. 2009;4(13):105-24. [Persian]
[7]Karseth B. Curriculum changes and moral issues in nursing education. Nurs Educ Today. 2004;24(8):638-43.
[8]Fathi Vajargah K. Principles and concepts of curriculum. Tehran: Bal Publication; 2009. [Persian]
[9]Egnew TR, Wilson HJ. Faculty and medical students’ perceptions of teaching and learning about the doctor–patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;79(2):199-206.
[10]Elnemr MA. Professionalism in medical education. Yemeni J Med Sci. 2010;(4):25-8.
[11]Nobakht M, Rudbari M. Student assessment from the quality of instruction professor at Tehran University of Medical Science. Teb Tazkieh. 2012;21(1):22-26. [Persian]
[12]Obeidi N. Effective factors of making communication between students and professors in medical, paramedical student's opinion. Iranian J Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2010;3(3):133-6. [Persian]
[13]Shakeriniya I. Physician-patient relationship and its role in the patient's satisfaction from process of treatment. Iranian J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2009;2(3):9-16. [Persian]
[14]Mohamadi mehr M, Fathi vajargah K. The position of the hidden curriculum in the continuing medical education. Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2008;1(1):48-53. [Persian]
[15]Yamani N, Changiz T, Adibi P. Professionalism and hidden curriculum in medical education. Isfahan: University of Medical Sciences; 2011. [Persian]
[16]Abedini M, Abasi A, Mortazavi F, Bijari B. Students’ viewpoint of factors affecting teacher-students communication, A study in Birjand University of medical sciences. Iranian J Med Educ. 2012;12(6):439-47. [Persian]
[17]Banidavoodi SH, Mehralizadeh Y, Parsa A. Evaluation of residents’ educational quality in university hospitals in Ahvaz with use of EFQM model in 2011. Educ Dev Jundishapur. 2013;3(2):1-10. [Persian]