How to Cite
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to gather and analyze faculty feedback regarding the newly implemented undergraduate MBBS curriculum at Rawalpindi Medical University. The aim was to evaluate faculty satisfaction across areas such as curriculum structure, teaching methods, assessment strategies, policy changes, and institutional support systems.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in December 2024, involving 31 faculty members from various departments. A structured questionnaire covering six key domains—circular organization, teaching and learning, assessments, policies, technological support, and general feedback—was administered. Responses were collected using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” Data were analyzed using frequency and percentage distributions to identify trends in satisfaction and areas needing improvement.
Results: Faculty feedback revealed strong support for the revised teaching strategies, with over 70% approving of both the timely scheduling and integrated teaching formats. Research-related activities were highly appreciated, receiving positive ratings from 81% of respondents. In contrast, assessment methods—particularly their frequency and duration—drew mixed responses, with 38.7% expressing dissatisfaction. A major concern emerged around workload, as only 22.6% found their duties manageable, while over half disagreed, pointing to significant faculty stress. Digital tools such as the Learning Management System (LMS) and biometric systems also received mixed reviews, with a large portion of faculty remaining neutral. Overall satisfaction with the curriculum changes stood at 48.3%, though nearly one-third were undecided and 19.4% expressed dissatisfaction, indicating areas that still require attention.
Conclusion: The feedback revealed generally positive perceptions of integrated teaching formats, research activities, and digitalization initiatives. However, concerns were raised about faculty workload, assessment frequency, and the effectiveness of support systems like LMS and biometric tools. While over half of the participants expressed agreement with most reforms, overall satisfaction with the curriculum changes was moderate. These findings highlight the need for continuous dialogue between faculty and curriculum planners to address operational challenges and enhance the efficacy of educational reforms.
Keywords: Curriculum evaluation, Faculty feedback , Medical education reform
References
Dohnde MS, Sangle VA, Mankar MJ. Evaluation of Integrated Teaching in Phase I MBBS Using the Kirkpatrick Model. Int J Res Dermatol. 2023;9(2):73–8. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.88879
Sharkas G, Badreldin HA, Abdul Rahman H. Faculty perception of integration in undergraduate medical curricula: A multinational survey. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):182. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06468-x.
Vallée A, Blacher J, Cariou A, Sorbets E. Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):e16504. https://doi.org/ 10.2196/16504.
Jabeen M, Iqbal M, Saleem T. Faculty’s Perspective of Integrated Curriculum and the Way Forward. Prof Med J. 2021;28(9):1247–52. https://doi.org/10.51273/esc25.251321131
Shah S, Khan IA, Muneer M. Effectiveness of Formative Assessments in Promoting Learning among MBBS Students. Pak J Health Sci. 2022;6(1):55–60. https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v4i2.843
Alhur SS, Attaallah R, Liu C, Krupinski EA. Integrating digital health into medical curricula: A review of current practices and future directions. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):372. https://doi.org/10.12692/ijb/23.6.34-43
Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Teach. 2002;24(3):280–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220123849
Harden RM. Integration in the medical curriculum: What are the options? Med Teach. 2000;22(5):402–7.https://doi.org/10.1080/014215900409144
Jabeen M, Iqbal M, Saleem T. Faculty’s perspective of integrated curriculum and the way forward. Prof Med J. 2024;31(08):1235–41. https://doi.org/10.51273/esc25.251321131
Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 2007;29(9):855–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701775453.
Biggs J. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ. 1996;32(3):347–64. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00138871.
Vallée A, Blacher J, Cariou A, Sorbets E. Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of medical Internet research. 2020 Aug 10;22(8):e16504. https://doi.org/10.2196/16504
Liaw SY, Wong LF, Chan SWC, Ho JT, Mordiffi SZ, Ang SB, et al. Designing and evaluating an interactive multimedia Web-based simulation for developing nurses’ competencies in acute nursing care: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(1):e5. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3641
D’Eon MF, Lear N, Turner M, Jones C. Perils of a full-time clinical faculty: The struggle for time. Med Educ. 2007;41(3):283–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2006.02601.x
Spencer J. Learning and teaching in the clinical environment. BMJ. 2003;326(7389):591–4. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/bmj.326.7389.591
Al-Kadri HM, Al-Moamary MS, van der Vleuten CP. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of clinical assessment program: A qualitative study in a Saudi medical school. Med Teach. 2013;35 Suppl 1:S83–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.767386
Fatima SS, Ahmed W, Siddiqui M, Ahmed M. Improvement in quality of MCQs through faculty development program in a private medical college. Pak J Med Sci. 2023;39(1):123–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09556
Farrukh K, Zehra F, Shahid F, Mehr Y. Health sciences faculty attitude and readiness towards simulation-based inter-professional education. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2024;34(2):212–17. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2024.02.212.
van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Driessen EW, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34(3):205–14. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.652239
Ten Cate O. Nuts and bolts of entrustable professional activities. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(1):157–8. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-1-17
Tekian A, Harris I. Preparing health professions education leaders worldwide: A description of s-level programs. Med Teach. 2012;34(1):52–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.635617
Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of e-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81(3):207–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002
Cutrer WB, Miller B, Pusic MV, Mejicano GC, Mangrulkar RS, Gruppen LD, et al. Fostering the development of Master Adaptive Learners: A conceptual model to guide skill acquisition in medical education. Acad Med. 2017;92(1):70–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001381
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Ifra Saeed, Farzana Fatima, Amna Ahmed, Musharraf Baig, Areeba Baig