Strides in Development of Medical Education

Teaching Model in Medical Sciences Curriculum Development with the Aim of Promoting Social Capital among Students

Document Type : Brief report

Authors

Forouzan Tonkaboni 1
Fatemeh-Al-sadat Robaty 2

1 PhD in Curriculum Development, Payame Noor University (PNU), Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, School of Literature, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran

Abstract
Background & Objective: With the presentation of topics related to social capital the attention of scholars has been drawn to the ability of curriculums to develop social capital and its components (trust participation and solidarity) The current study aimed to present a teaching model for curriculum development for medical students in order to improve their social capital Methods: This qualitative survey was carried out based on grounded theory Data were gathered through interviews with 18 professors of medical curriculum planning The subjects were selected through purposive sampling Open axial and selective coding approaches were used to analyze the data Results: Teaching method was recognized as the main context of the present paper Then barriers to strategies and outcomes of the main context of the study were separated and plotted within a research paradigm and the final model of the study was created Conclusion: In the planning of the curriculum for medical sciences students factors effective on social capital promotion must be considered in the development of teaching methods

Keywords

Curriculum
Social capital
Teaching method
Medical sciences students
Medical sciences professors
  1. Woolcock M. Social capital and economic development toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society. 1998: 27(2): 151-208.
  2. Tahghigghi A. Social capital of governments and organization in Iran. J Islamic Law. 2005; 11-12: 70-9. [In Persian]
  3. Putnam R. Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences. Massachusetts, United States: Kennedy School  of  Government,  Harvard University;  2005.
  4. Tavassoli  GH.  The  end  of  order.  (Translation). Fukuyama  F.  Tehran:  Iranian  Society  Press;  2006. [In  Persian]
  5. Saifollahi  S.  Sociology  in  social  problems  in  Iran. Collection  of  articles  and  ideas.  Tehran:  Jamee Pajoohan  –  e-  Sina  Press;  2005.
  6. Kavianpour  J.  Urban  management  and  social capitals.  [Cited  2007  Mar  8].  Available  from: http://vista.ir/article/254912.  [In  Persian]
  7. Zaker  Salehi  GR.  The  Paradox  of  Social  Capital of  Iranian  Educated  People:  Survey  and  study  on the  relationship  between  higher  education  and social  capital  in  Iran.  J  Engineering  Educ. 2008;40(1);  25-51.
  8. Tonkaboni  F,  Yousefy  A,  Keshtiaray  N.  The relationship  between  the  curriculum  of  higher education  and  social  capital.  J  Education  and Training.  2013;  1(1):  39-47.
  9. Delforooz  MT.  Democracy  and  Civic  traditions. (Translation).  Putnam  R.  Tehran:  Salam  Press; 2005.  [In  Persian]
  10. Schiff  M.  Labor  mobility,  Trade  and  Social capital.  [Cited  2001  Mar  8].  Available  from: ftp://repec.iza.org/pub/SSRN/pdf/dp1027.pdf.
  11. Chalabi M.  Sociology  of  Order.  Tehran:  Ney  Pub; 2007.  [In  Persian]
  12. Yarmohammadian MH.  Curriculum  Planning Principles.  Tehran:  Yadvare  Ketab;  2012.   [in  Persian]
  13. Mehrmohammadi M.  Curriculum  theories, approaches  and  perspectives.  Tehran:  Samt  Pub; 2009.  [In  Persian]
  14. Tonkaboni  F,  Yousefy  A,  Keshtiaray  N. Description  and  recognition  the  concept  of  social capital  in  higher  education  system.  Int  Educ Studies.  2013;6(9);  40
  15. Ornstein  C.  Curriculum  foundation  principles  and issues.  London:  Mc  Cutahan  Pub;  2011.
  16. Shabani  H.  Skill's  education.  Tehran:  Samt  Pub; 2006:10-11.  [In  Persian]
  17. Behrangi  MR.  Models  of  teaching.  (Translation). Joyce  B.  Tehran:  Kamal-e-Tarbiat;  2008.  [In Persian]
  18. Burns  N,  Grove  SK.  Understanding  nursing research:  Building  an  evidence-based  practice.  4th ed.  Philadelphia:  Saunders  Co;  2007:124-30.
  19. Solati M,  Javadi  R,  Hoseini  Tashnizi  S,  Asghari N.  Desirability  of  two  participatory  methods  of teaching, based on  students'  viewpoint. Hormozgan  Med  J.  2010;  14(3):  191–7.  [In Persian]
  20. Flick B,  Williamson  K.  Frontiers  in  Education, FIE  Apos,  Proceedings  of  the35th  Annual conference  on  education;  2005oct19-22,  Indiana, USA2005:  1302-6.
  21. Momeni Danaie  S,  Zarshenas  L,  Oshagh  M, Omidekhoda  M.  Which  method  of  teaching would  be  better;  cooperative  or  lecture?  Iran  J Med  Educ.  2011;  11(1):  1–8.
  22. Marjaee  S.  H.  Social  capital  among  students. Tehran:  the  Institute  of  Research  and  Planning; 2004.  [in  Persian]
  23. Merghati-Khoei  E,  Zareie  F,  Bayat  A, Dastoorpour  M,  Rimaz  S.  Exploring  the  teaching and  learning  approaches  from  the  viewpoint  of postgraduate  students  and  their  lecturers.  J  Health Educ  Health  Promotion.  2013;  1(3):67-82.   [In  Persian]
  24. Moein A,  Heydari  Seraj  M.  Comparison  of viewpoints  of  dermatology  medical  students involved  in  teaching-learning  process  about  two methods  of  learning:  group  discussion  versus lecture.  Dermatology  &Cosmetic.  2014;5(2):82-8. [In  Persian]
Strides in Development of Medical Education
Volume 13, Issue 4
2016
Pages 411-421

Home

Editorial Policy

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Authors

Peer Review Process

Guide for Reviewers

Publication Ethics Policy

Forms

Suggestion and Complain

FAQ

Contact Us