 |
 |

Curriculum Change in the 1980sA Report of 40 Southern US Medical Schools
Terrence T. Kuske, MD;
Glenn A. Fleming, EdD;
Roy K. Jarecky, EdD;
Jon H. Levine, MD;
Lloyd A. Lewis, PhD
JAMA. 1985;254(19):2783-2786.
Abstract
Forty southern medical schools were surveyed to evaluate the nature and mechanisms of curricular change during 1980 to 1983. Ninety percent of schools experienced change in some aspect of curriculum. Faculty, curriculum committees, the dean, and external forces were stimuli for change. Internal self-review or self-criticism seemed to be the most important reasons for change. Proposals were considered by curriculum committees and the dean, but veto power often rested with the dean, although departmental chairmen and faculty occasionally had veto power. Types of change were divided equally between content, timing of courses, and the educational process. Half the schools stated that they had evaluated the changes or planned to do so. Thirteen of 38 changes in curriculum were in the direction of curricular innovations of the 1960s and 1970s and 25 were in the opposite direction.
(JAMA 1985;254:2783-2786)
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Medicine (Dr Kuske) and Division of Educational Research (Dr Lewis), Medical College of Georgia, Augusta; the Department of Medicine (Dr Levine) and Office of Educational Service (Dr Fleming), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; and the Office of Education, School of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington (Dr Jarecky).
Footnotes
Reprint requests to Associate Dean for Curriculum, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912 (Dr Kuske).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Does Faculty Development Enhance Teaching Effectiveness?
Hendricson et al.
J Dent Educ 2007;71:1513-1533.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Dental Curriculum at North American Dental Institutions in 2002-03: A Survey of Current Structure, Recent Innovations, and Planned Changes
Kassebaum et al.
J Dent Educ 2004;68:914-931.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|