Evaluating Curriculum Viability in Dental Education: A Mixed-Methods Study at HITEC Institute of Medical Science

Fatima  Shaukat; Rizwan  Sultan; Umme Ammarah  Omer; Irum  Tassaduq; Salma  Ambreen; Naila  Zakria

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v75i1.13119

Authors

Fatima Shaukat Department of Dental Education, Heavy Industries Taxila Education City/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Rizwan Sultan Heavy Industries Taxila Education City/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Umme Ammarah Omer Department of Dental Education, Army Medical College/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi Pakistan
Irum Tassaduq Heavy Industries Taxila Education City/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Salma Ambreen Heavy Industries Taxila Education City/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Naila Zakria Department of Dental Sciences, Heavy Industries Taxila Education City/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v75i1.13119

Keywords:

Curriculum viability, Curriculum inhibitors, Effectiveness of curriculum. Medical Education, Teachers’ perception.

Abstract

Objective: To identify key areas where the curriculum may be lacking, thereby providing insights for curriculum enhancement efforts.

Study Design: Mixed method study – explanatory sequential type.

Place and Duration of Study: HITEC Institute of Medical Sciences, Heavy Industries Taxila Cantt, Pakistan, from May to Jun 2024.

Methodology: A validated questionnaire was distributed to 75 faculty members at HITEC Dental College. Categorical data analysis was conducted using frequencies and percentages of participant’s answer. In next phase of study, a Focus group discussion was done involving 8 faculty members to discuss results of first phase allowing for a comprehensive assessment of faculty perceptions regarding significant curricular inhibitors. The solutions provided by the faculty to overcome these inhibitors were recorded and described in the study.

Results: Analysis of 50 responses revealed that the overall educational program was perceived positively and aligned with institutional goals. Five out of the 25 items of the questionnaire were highlighted as ineffective. Two items were related to social interaction, one related to disciplinary culture, institutional policies and faculty involvement. Thematic analysis in the focus group discussions with eight senior faculty members supported these findings and provided deeper insights.

Conclusion: This study highlighted key inhibitors to curricular success of the college and targeted strategies to overcome these inhibitors. By conducting similar researches frequently and in other institutions, effectiveness of curriculum can not only be assessed but also improved.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Owan VJ, Emanghe EE, Denwigwe CP, Etudor-Eyo E, Usoro AA, Ebuara VO, et al. Curriculum Management and Graduate Programmes' Viability: The Mediation of Institutional Effectiveness Using PLS-SEM Approach. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching 2022; 11(5): 114-127.

https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v11n5p114

Hays J, Reinders H. Sustainable learning and education: A curriculum for the future. International Review of Education 2020; 66(1): 29-52.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09820-7

Sikander F, Khan RA, Batool S. Developing a scoring framework for curriculum viability indicators to assess the survival of a curriculum. 28 January 2024, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3890628/v1

Al-Ajeely SA, Alkhawaldeh MA, Khasawneh MAS. Developing Curricula Standards in General Education in the Light of International Standards. Migration Letters 2023; 20(S3): 1090-104.

https://doi.org/10.59670/ml.v20iS3.4005

Khan RA, Spruijt A, Mahboob U, Eraky MA, van Merrienboer JJ. Curriculum viability indicators: A Delphi study to determine standards and inhibitors of a curriculum. Evaluation & the health professions 2021; 44(3): 210-219.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278720934164

Iqbal S, Aziz A, Sultan S, Azhar M, Ahmed Z, Nayyer M. Investigating the challenges that impede the viability of a Dental curriculum for Undergraduate studies. Pakistan Journal of Medical & Health Sciences 2023; 17(02): 634-636.

https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs2023172634

Martone A, Sireci SG. Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of educational research 2009; 79(4): 1332-1361.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309341375

Sewagegn AA. Learning objective and assessment linkage: Its contribution to meaningful student learning. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 8(11): 5044-52.

https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081104

Bendermacher G, oude Egbrink MG, Wolfhagen I, Dolmans DH. Unravelling quality culture in higher education: a realist review. Higher education 2017; 73: 39-60.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9979-2

Nevenglosky EA, Cale C, Aguilar S. Barriers to effective curriculum implementation. Research in Higher Education Journal [Internet] 2019; 36. Available from:

https://www.proquest.com/openview/d9d07dd15a6b0eaf118fb4f43ed64759/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

Khan RA, Spruijt A, Mahboob U, van Merrienboer JJ. Determining ‘curriculum viability’through standards and inhibitors of curriculum quality: a scoping review. BMC medical education 2019; 19:1-11.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1759-8

Basic G, Lokareva GV, Stadnichenko NV. Inclusive educational spaces and social pedagogical recognition: Interaction-and social-pedagogy-inspired analysis of space dynamics in compulsory, upper-secondary and post-secondary education. Education Sciences 2021; 11(11): 754.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110754

Mackey TP. Transparency as a catalyst for interaction and participation in open learning environments. FM [Internet]2011 Sep. 30 [cited 2024 Oct. 16]; 16(10). Available from: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/333 https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i10.3333

Peters H, Zdravkovic M, João Costa M, Celenza A, Ghias K, Klamen D, et al. Twelve tips for enhancing student engagement. Medical teacher 2019; 41(6): 632-637.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1459530

Ocak MA. Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers & Education 2011; 56(3): 689-99.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.011

Phelan AM. Towards a complicated conversation: Teacher education and the curriculum turn. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 2011; 19(2): 207-20.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.582257

Huizinga T, Handelzalts A, Nieveen N, Voogt JM. Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. J Curriculum Studies 2014; 46(1): 33-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.834077

Ansar A. Inhibitors of curriculum development, implementation, and reception. Health Professions Education and Research 2023; 1.

https://doi.org/10.54844/hper.2023.0484

Jeovany Martínez-Mesa, David Alejandro González-Chica, Rodrigo Pereira Duquia, Renan Rangel Bonamigo, João Luiz Bastos. Sampling: how to select participants in my research study? 2016; 91(3): 326–330.

https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20165254