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

ABSTRACT

Aims Interaction in the learning process is in the form of exchanging ideas and information between lecturer and student. The main objective of this study was to identify and rank the dimensions of the lecturer’s interaction in the medical theoretical curriculum.
Materials & Methods This descriptive survey study was performed on 175 stagers and interns of Shahed University in 2011 academic year, and 120 persons were selected using simple random sampling method. The research instrument was the researcher made questionnaire to assess the features of the basic sciences lecturers’ interaction, in five dimensions of ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with student’, ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with patient’, ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with colleague’, ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with society’ and ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with herself’. One-sample T, independent T, ANOVA and Friedman tests were used in the SPSS 18 software format for statistical analysis.
Findings there was a significant difference according to the students’ points of view only in the ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with patient’, separated by sex (p=0.047) and course (p=0.003). Students’ points of view were significantly different (p<0.05) in the ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with patient’ and the ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with herself’ according to age and academic year, and on the ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with society’ according to academic year.
Conclusion According to the students’ points of view, ‘mode of interaction of lecturer with colleague’ is in the highest priority, and mode of interaction of lecturer with herself, patient, society and student are in next priorities, respectively.

Keywords: Curriculum, Interaction, Theoretical Education,

CITATION 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]