STAFF MEMBERS’ PERCEPTION TOWARDS CURRICULUM REFORM: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL DENTAL SCHOOLS IN ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 10, Volume 41, Issue 1, April 2016, Page 55-65 PDF (1.97 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59173 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Sh El Shimy* ; M Hamza* ; W Essam-ElDin* | ||||
| Demonstrator of dental public health, Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Pharos University of Alexandria | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: Dental curriculum holds an important place when seeking to promote innovation in the educational field. Challenges and successes of curricular reform may be influenced by the established identity and role of staff members involved, in addition to their perception about the teaching process that may be in conflict with the recommended changes or innovations. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed at assessing the dental educators' perceptions towards curriculum reform and identifying the barriers in creating an innovative teaching strategy in Alexandria (governmental) versus Pharos (non-governmental) faculties of dentistry (dental schools), Alexandria, Egypt. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional research design using a self-administered questionnaire was used to fulfill the study aim. A total of 170, full-time faculty members, in all departments, and of different academic degrees (including PhD, Master and Bachelor Degrees) were invited to participate in the study in the period from September 2013 to May 2014. RESULTS: The response rate was 47.60% in the Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University and 71% in the Faculty of Dentistry, Pharos University. The majority of staff members in both universities (99.0% and 94.4, respectively) had a positive perception towards curriculum reform, with a significantly higher percentage detected in Alexandria faculty of dentistry (P=0.048) especially in relation to self-directed learning (P=0.001). Faculty members in both faculties recognized the role of efficient staff member in the educational process. Meanwhile, the Pharos faculty of dentistry teaching staff was significantly more oriented towards the barriers to curriculum reform especially lack of time to adopt new teaching approaches (P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The necessity of curriculum reform was perceived by the majority of dental educators, in both faculties. Lack of time and crowded curriculum were considered as relevant barriers to implement innovative teaching strategies especially problem based learning and community service. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Curriculum reform; staff members; dental education; Attitude; perception; barriers | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Plasschaert AJM, Manogue M, Holly J. Curriculum structure and European Credit Transfer System for European dental schools. Part 1. Eur J Dent Educ 2006; 10: 123-30.
2. Kärkkäinen K. “Bringing About Curriculum Innovations: Implicit Approaches in the OECD Area”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 82, OECD, 2012. Available at: www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers.
3. Licari FW. Faculty development to support curriculum change and ensure the future vitality of dental education.J Dent Educ. 2007; 71: 1509-12.
4. Haden NK, Hendricson WD, Kassebaum DK, Ranney RR, Weinstein G, Anderson EL, Valachovic RW. Curriculum change in dental education, 2003-09. J Dent Educ. 2010; 74: 539-57.
5. Hewson MG, Copeland HL, Fishleder AJ. What’s the use of faculty development? Program evaluation using retrospective self-assessments and independent performance ratings. Teach Learn Med 2001; 13: 153- 60.
6. Morzinski JA, Fisher JC. A nationwide study of the influences of faculty development programs on colleague relationships. Acad Med 2002; 77: 402-6.
7. Bland CJ, Seaquist E, Pacala JT, Center B, Finstad D. One school’s strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty. Acad Med 2002; 77: 368-76.
8. American Dental Education Association Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education. Beyond the crossroads: change and innovation in dental education. Washington, DC: American Dental Education Association, 2009
9. Haden NK, Andrieu SC, Chadwick DG, Chmar JE, Cole JR, George MC, et al. The dental education environment. J Dent Educ 2006; 70: 1265-70.
10. Kalkwarf KL, Haden NK, Valachovic RW. ADEA Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education. J Dent Educ 2005; 69: 1085-7.
11. Hendricson WD, Cohen P. Oral health care in the 21st century: implications for dental and medical education. Acad Med 2001; 76(12): 1181-206.
12. Haden NK, Beemsterboer PL, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Dental school faculty shortages increase: an update on future dental school faculty. J Dent Educ 2000; 64: 657–73.
13. Schenkein HA, Best AM. Factors considered by new faculty in their decision to choose careers in academic dentistry. J Dent Educ 2001; 65: 832–40.
14. Gugushe TS. Perceptions of Curriculum Innovation among Educators in South African Dental Schools – an explorative study. Faculty of Education, University of Stellenbosch, 2009. Available at: http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/2047
15. Nadershahi NA, Bender DJ, Beck L, Lyon C, Blaseio A. An overview of case-based and problem based learning methodologies for dental education. J Dent Educ 2013;77:1300-5
16. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Subject benchmarks for dentistry. Gloucester: QAA; 2000.
17. National Authority for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Education. National Academic Reference Standards (NARS): Dentistry. Egypt: NAQAAE; 2009 Jan. 18p. [Available at: http://books.naqaae.org/uni/nars/dentistry/index.html?p ageNumber=8].
18. Quality Assurance Unit. Faculty of Dentistry. Alexandria University. Strategic plan (2010 - 2014). Alexandria, Egypt: Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University; 2009. [Available at: http://www.alexdental.net/web/page_en.php?ID=31].
19. Quality Assurance Unit. Faculty of Dentistry. Alexandria University. Annual faculty self-evaluation report. Academic year 2011-2012. Alexandria, Egypt: Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University; 2012. [Available at: http://www.alexdental.net/web/page_en.php?ID=31]
20. Quality Assurance Unit. Faculty of Dentistry. Alexandria University. Program specifications. Academic year 2011-2012. Alexandria, Egypt: Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University; 2012. [Available at: http://www.dent.alex.edu.eg/elearning/]
21. Stafford GL. Fostering dental faculty collaboration with an evidence-based decision making model designed for curricular change. .J Dent Educ 2014;78:349-58.
22. Quality Assurance Unit. Alexandria University. Faculty of Dentistry.. 2013. Available at: http://dent.au.alexu.edu.eg/English/AboutUs/Pages/Mis sion%20and%20Vision.aspx
23. Quality Assurance Unit. Pharos University of Alexandria. Faculty of Dentistry. 2013. Available at: http://www.pua.edu.eg/Page.aspx
24. Spallek H, O'Donnell JA, Yoo YI. Preparing faculty members for significant curricular revisions in a school of dental medicine. J Dent Educ 2010; 74: 275- 88.
25.Iacopino AM. The influence of “new science” on dental education: current concepts, trends, and models for the future. J Dent Educ 2007; 71: 450–62.
26. Kassebaum DK, Hendricson WD, Taft T, Haden NK. The dental curriculum at North American dental institutions in 2002-03: a survey of current structure, recent innovations, and planned changes. J Dent Educ 2004; 68: 914-31.
27. Nadershahi NA, Bender DJ, Beck L, Alexander S. A case study on development of an integrated, multidisciplinary dental curriculum. Dent Educ 203;77: 679-87. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 264 PDF Download: 397 |
||||
