对美国和加拿大医学院课程委员会的调查。

W D Hendricson, M S Katz, L J Hoy
{"title":"对美国和加拿大医学院课程委员会的调查。","authors":"W D Hendricson,&nbsp;M S Katz,&nbsp;L J Hoy","doi":"10.1097/00001888-198810000-00004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A 27-item questionnaire was sent to 144 U.S. and Canadian medical schools to identify prevailing patterns in the organization, philosophy, and function of curriculum committees. Overall, 76 percent responded, with 67 percent of the respondents being school administrators and 33 percent being faculty members. Fifty-one percent rated their school's committee as exerting a significant impact on the educational program over the previous five years. Fifty-six percent of the committees had a routine procedure for course review and used data from multiple sources when conducting curriculum evaluations. The committees that annually received a specific assignment from the dean were the most likely (91 percent) to be rated as having a significant impact, followed by committees that conducted frequent course reviews (66 percent). Thirty-eight percent of the committees were primarily faculty oriented, 29 percent were decidedly administrative in composition, and the remaining committees exhibited a mixture of membership.</p>","PeriodicalId":31052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1988-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/00001888-198810000-00004","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survey on curriculum committees at U.S. and Canadian medical schools.\",\"authors\":\"W D Hendricson,&nbsp;M S Katz,&nbsp;L J Hoy\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/00001888-198810000-00004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A 27-item questionnaire was sent to 144 U.S. and Canadian medical schools to identify prevailing patterns in the organization, philosophy, and function of curriculum committees. Overall, 76 percent responded, with 67 percent of the respondents being school administrators and 33 percent being faculty members. Fifty-one percent rated their school's committee as exerting a significant impact on the educational program over the previous five years. Fifty-six percent of the committees had a routine procedure for course review and used data from multiple sources when conducting curriculum evaluations. The committees that annually received a specific assignment from the dean were the most likely (91 percent) to be rated as having a significant impact, followed by committees that conducted frequent course reviews (66 percent). Thirty-eight percent of the committees were primarily faculty oriented, 29 percent were decidedly administrative in composition, and the remaining committees exhibited a mixture of membership.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":31052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1988-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/00001888-198810000-00004\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198810000-00004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198810000-00004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

研究人员向144所美国和加拿大的医学院发送了一份包含27个项目的问卷,以确定课程委员会的组织、理念和功能方面的普遍模式。总的来说,76%的人做出了回应,其中67%的受访者是学校管理人员,33%是教职员工。51%的人认为他们学校的委员会在过去五年中对教育项目产生了重大影响。56%的委员会有课程审查的常规程序,并在进行课程评估时使用来自多个来源的数据。每年从院长那里接到特定任务的委员会最有可能(91%)被评为具有重大影响的委员会,其次是经常进行课程审查的委员会(66%)。38%的委员会主要以教师为导向,29%的委员会在组成上明显是行政管理的,其余的委员会则是成员的混合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Survey on curriculum committees at U.S. and Canadian medical schools.

A 27-item questionnaire was sent to 144 U.S. and Canadian medical schools to identify prevailing patterns in the organization, philosophy, and function of curriculum committees. Overall, 76 percent responded, with 67 percent of the respondents being school administrators and 33 percent being faculty members. Fifty-one percent rated their school's committee as exerting a significant impact on the educational program over the previous five years. Fifty-six percent of the committees had a routine procedure for course review and used data from multiple sources when conducting curriculum evaluations. The committees that annually received a specific assignment from the dean were the most likely (91 percent) to be rated as having a significant impact, followed by committees that conducted frequent course reviews (66 percent). Thirty-eight percent of the committees were primarily faculty oriented, 29 percent were decidedly administrative in composition, and the remaining committees exhibited a mixture of membership.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Examining the Status of Competency-Oriented in Medical Science Education in Iran Designing an Application to Empower Academic Staff Members in the Field of E-Learning Design and Development of Electronic Moulage of Brachial Plexus Muscles to Enhance the Learning of Upper Limb Anatomy: An Interventional Study Applying a Meta-synthesis Approach to Present a Blended Learning Model for Talent Development How to Develop a Memory Game for Clinical Courses: A Leading Approach to the Interaction of Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1