Faculty Satisfication Regarding Modular Teaching
Introduction: Recently many medical institutes have been shifted to integrated curriculum; however, the implementation of integrated curriculum has faced problems due to both faculty and student’s satisfaction. Though faculty gives value to it, still certain believe that it’s not as effective as the traditional system. This study aims to evaluate the satisfactory level regarding modular teaching among faculty members at three different medical institutes in Pakistan.
Material and Methods: This was a descriptive study where the senior faculty members from three different medical institutes were included. After written consent from participants the data was collected through semi-structured questionnaire. Total of 88 faculty members were included through convenient sampling technique. Data analyzed by SPSS version-22.
Results: Overall 50% participants agreed that strength of modular teaching is the integration process & clinical application. 38% agreed that modular teaching provides better understanding & clarity of concepts. Regarding weaknesses 44% agreed that modular teaching requires more trained faculty, 27% said that more resources are required. On the other hand, 84% showed satisfaction that students get more benefits from modular teaching as compare to conventional teaching & 72% agreed that teacher biasness is less, 82% agreed that students become a lifelong learner, 85% agreed that more applied knowledge is delivered through this system.
Conclusion: The majority of participating faculties were satisfied with modular teaching as it has a good clinical application, provides better understanding & a student-centered approach.
2. Rajabi F, Majdzadeh R, Ziaee SA. Trends in medical education, an example from a developing country. Arch Iran Med 2011; 14(2):132-8.
3. Bassaw B, Pitt-Miller P. Modernizing medical education: perspective from a developing country. West Indian Med J 2007; 56(1):80-5.
4. Pakistan Medical and Dental Concil “The Bhurban Declaration of Medical Education” 2015.
5. Rehman R, Iqbal A, Syed a, Kamran A. Evaluation of Integrated Learning Program of Undergraduate Medical Students. Pak J Physiol 2011; 7(2):37-41.
6. Barker BD, O'Neil EH. Shaping the future profession: a new tableau for dental education. J Dent Educ 1992; 56(4):229-35.
7. Padmapriya T. The perspectives and perceptions of dental education in the West and an overview of dental education in India. J Educ Ethics Dent 2015; 5:41-6.
8. Lamster IB, Eaves K. A model for dental practice in the 21st century. Am J Public Health 2011; 101(10):1825-30.
9. Wood DF. Problem based learning. BMJ 2008; 336(7651):971.
10. Jafarey NA. Medical education in Pakistan-the way forward. PIMA Biennial Convention 2012.
11. Amin M, Ahmed B. Dental Education in Pakistan: Current Trends and Practices. J Coll of Physicians Surg Pak. 2010; 20(8):497-498.
12. PMDC. Recommends BDS curriculum revision, Available from: http://nation.com.pk/national/28-Oct-2014/pmdc-recommends-bds-curriculum-revision2016; [Acessed on 2 August 2016].
13. Express. Medical, dental educational curricula to beupgraded; Available from: http://tribune.com.pk/story/839446/medical-dental-educational-curricula-to-be-upgraded/2016; [cited 2 August 2016].
14. Zaib N, Masood R, Kiyani A, Umer N, Nawabi S. Need To Revise Oral Pathology Curriculum. PODJ 2015; 35(4):591-5.
15. Padmapriya T. The perspectives and perceptions of dental education in the West and an overview of dental education in India. J Educ Ethics Dent 2015; 5:41-6.
16. Khan JS, Tabasum S, Mukhtar O, and Iqbal M. Developing the outcomes of a baccalaureate of dental surgery programme. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2010; 22(3):205-9.
17. Innes N, Hurst D. GDC learning outcomes for the undergraduate dental curriculum. Evid Based Dent 2012; 13(1):2-3.
18. Bush H, Bissell V. The evaluation of an approach to reflective learning in the undergraduate dental curriculum. Eur J Dent Educ 2008; 12(2):103-10.
19. Shirani Bidabadi N, Nasr Isfahani A, Rouhollahi A, Khalili R. Effective Teaching Methods in Higher Education: Requirements and Barriers. J Adv Med Educ Prof 2016; 4(4):170-178.
20. Sadiq S, Zamir S. Effectiveness of Modular Approach in Teaching at University Level Journal of Education and Practice 2014; 5(17):103-9.
21. Vashe A, Devi V, Rao R, Abraham RR, Pallath V, Umakanth S. Using an integrated teaching approach to facilitate student achievement of the learning outcomes in a preclinical medical curriculum in India. Adv Physiol Educ 2019; 43(4):522-528.
22. Davis MH, Harden RM. Planning and implementing an undergraduate medical curriculum: the lessons learned. Med Teach 2004; 25(6):596-608.
23. Kadirvelu A, Gurtu S. Integrated Learning in Medical Education: Are Our Students Ready? Med.Sci.Educ 2015;25(1):549–551
24. Fatima U, Naz M, Zafar H, Fatima A, Khan RR. Student’s perception about modular teaching and various instructional strategies in the subject of obstetrics and gynecology. The Professional Medical Journal 2020; 27(1):40-45.
25. Zhang H. Collaborative learning as a pedagogical tool to develop intercultural competence in a multicultural class. China Media Research Journal 2012; 8(2):107- 111.
26. Davies WK. European lifelong learning initiative. European Journal of Engineering Education. 1993; 18(2):125-8.
27. Holen A. The PBL group: self-reflections and feedback for improved learning and growth. Med Teach 2000; 22(5):485-8.
Copyright (c) 2022 Inayat ur Rahman, Sumreena Mansoor, Lubna Meraj, Mumtaz Ahmad, Mobina Ahsan Dodhy, Hina Sattar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
All research articles published in the Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College (JRMC) are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download, and share. Copyrights of all articles published in JRMC are retained by the authors. First publication rights are granted to JRMC. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.