The Study of Students & Faculty Members Views for Observation of Students Needs in Identification of Bachelor General Courses Curriculum Factors
Yaghoob Azizi[1], Alireza Sadeghi[2] and Hossein Abdollahi[3]
Corresponding author:
Abstract:
The survey was performed in the capital with the aims of studying student and faculty member perceptions for observation of student needs of university courses curriculum. In this study four basic curriculum elements such as objectives, content, teaching method and evaluation in addition to educational materials general courses were probed. The applied method of research was descriptive survey. The statistical society of this research included all students at Tehran University and the professors teaching general courses in these universities; the sample size consisted of 20 professors and 384 students selected based on Morgan model. Their most recognized significant needs embedded in four elements of objectives, content, teaching method and evaluation are mentioned below respectively. Students and professors had recognized their most significant needs in the general courses objectives and society changing needs flexibility and observation of students education ability skills. In content, presentation of basic general courses and the virtual fact of new and updated knowledge and information were realized as another most significant need. Moreover, students intellectual innovative and creative skills development can greatly assist in the uptaken teaching method. Essentiality was further found in teachers assessment methods of uptaking course categories continuous and with appropriate
educational materials. Still, from students perspectives ‘research methods and writing articles’ course categories is also distinguishably felt among.
Key words: needs, curriculum, general courses, higher education
Introduction:
History of higher education curricula exhibits many admissions and controversies existing in the role and status of general curriculum besides specialized university curriculum. Although the presence and activity of this section of curriculum does not date back long formally in the curriculum of higher education yet, in general it is typical to its own and there are various expressed opinions in terms of its quantitative and qualitative aspects. ((Mac Lap, 1974) Critics of higher education curricula believe that high focus solely on specialized fields of higher education can drive students to highly limited and one-dimensional study routes which inspite of society needs and ever developing technology and knowledge does not seem so favourable and certainly not in the benefit of society improvement and development. (Lottuca, 1997) Thus, in addition to focus on professional-specialised training and education basic training can also preserve its place in academic education and no doubt propounds in between higher education curricula with various expressions such as ‘common core program’, ‘essential skill program’ or simply as a general education. (Stark, 1997) Yan however, by stating the fact that the contemporary world in addition to experts in specialized field is in need of individuals with adequate general knowledge and capabilities of day-to-day has further glamoured the significance of general courses by several times. (Brubacher, 1980) In view of the growing trend of transformations and present world development the liability of higher education systems has remarkably changed globally i.e. from assistance to ‘accomplishment of acquiring simply to learn’ to assistance in ‘learning for better life’. (Boyer, 1987). Numerous research on this case indicate that universities and institutions of higher education within a decade i.e. from 1990 till 2000 have highly been active to alter and reform their general education curriculum. Many university directors (at various levels) now increasingly believe on the fact that the general curriculum must be reviewed such as to dynamically respond to social variable needs, students favourite attractions and the needs in the realm of education. (Johanson & Ratcliff, 2004) Hence, in view of what stated the ultimate goal of this study is to obtain information and recognition of student and faculty members perspectives over the tangible needs of general courses curriculum elements for bachelors.
Method of Research
The study was carried on the basis of descriptive research survey practical aims and data collection. In this method, questionnaires were used to investigate student and professor views over students needs for the elements of general courses curriculum. The present research is a survey study by application of Likert scale measurement with experts views. For this, two statistical society were considered: a) students: Tehran University bachelors (including: University of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Ministry of Health and Medical Education and also Islamic Azad University) Further, in order to universalize the needed research students in four main tendencies of (i) humanities; (ii) engineering (iii) science and (iv) arts) and b) Faculty members: professors who tuition general undergraduate courses were considered. In this survey, stratified random sampling method was used on students as to recall their research performance on four floors in four major tendencies.
The universities were next divided into relatively four homogenous structured groups of: (i) humanities; (ii) engineering; (iii) science and (iv) arts. Also, for this section of sampling the universities were selected on the basis of their field poles and the credit and significance in the considered field in Tehran which is the geographical scope of the present research study. The elected universities comprised of: (i) Tehran University (ii) Iran University of Medical Sciences (iii) Allameh Tabatabaei University (iv) Amirkabir University of Technology and (v) University of Arts. The applied device in this research–questionnaires, ascertained that a researcher should initially search and study the existing general courses scriptures and resources and the elements of the curriculum and observe professors views in the same field to create closed questionnaires. Hence, Likert scale questionnaire was structured for the four spectrum (very high, high, low, very low) that propound the certainty of placing the average in the options of spectrum for prevention of respondents orientation and by observance of Tyler curriculum elements (objectives, content, teaching methods and evaluation) and also the new courses that researcher add to the curriculum. The researcher has analysed questionnaire by using data analysis method and statistical analysis software, SPSS and subsequently has calculated the percentage frequency of responded queries separated by elements as presented in Table. Here, after collection of data in order to determine the reliability of the measuring device Cronbach's alpha was applied. Based on Cronbach’s alpha that focus on internal consistency and measuring device tutors reliability coefficient questionnaires at acceptable level of 0.89 and students questionnaires at acceptable level of 0.85 was analysed by application of SPSS software. It was therefore concluded that measuring devices in same condition produce the same results.
Table 1 – Statements on general courses objectives element
Average RatingObjectives / Student / Priority / Professors / Priority
a) Observation of student cognitive abilities development / 3.43 / 4 / 4.18 / 3
b) Observation of student skill abilities development / 3.92 / 2 / 4.64 / 1
c) Observation of student attitude abilities development / 3.63 / 5 / 2.68 / 4
d) Flexibility of changing society needs in various sectors (economic, cultural, educational, etc.) / 4.29 / 1 / 4.43 / 2
e) Student appropriateness of needs and interests / 3.80 / 3 / 2.46 / 6
f) Clear Targets obligations / 2.21 / 6 / 2.61 / 5
Friedman test / X2
Sig / 9.615
0.05 / 29.82
0.01
In Table (1) the results of Friedman test in determining priority needs of general courses, objectives setting is presented from student and faculty members perspectives in separation. The results truly indicate that from students perspectives flexibility of needs on the basis of changing society in various sectors (economic, cultural, educational, etc.) is recognized the most significant needs in general courses objectives setting.
Table 2- Statements on general courses contents element
Average RatingContent / Student / Priority / Professor / Priority
a)General courses content by observation of new updated knowledge and information / 8.14 / 1 / 5.17 / 8
b) General courses content applied and assistance to specialized courses / 5.18 / 7 / 5.04 / 9
c) Explicit content in the general education curriculum / 4.43 / 11 / 5.45 / 6
d) General courses content curriculum with needed basic and general concepts / 5.14 / 8 / 7.42 / 3
e) General courses content in view of scientific needs / 5.71 / 6 / 3.67 / 11
f) General courses content appropriate with students daily needs / 7.86 / 2 / 7.25 / 4
g) General courses content in view of information and general knowledge increases / 6.36 / 5 / 5.29 / 7
h) General courses content for students insight and cultural development / 4.57 / 10 / 8.42 / 1
i) General courses content interests / 5.11 / 9 / 4.58 / 10
j) High-level thinking development rate (creative, critical and problem-solving) through content / 7 / 3 / 6.42 / 5
k) The rate of general course content relevance and appropriateness with future tasks and professional needs / 6.5 / 4 / 7.5 / 2
Friedman test / X2
Sig / 20.64
0.01 / 23.96
0.01
In Table (2) the results of Friedman test in determining priority needs of general courses content is presented from student and faculty members perspectives in separation. The obtained results indicate that from students perspectives general courses content is presented in view of new and updated knowledge and information; most significant need of general courses content. Also, from faculty members perspectives the most significant need of general courses content is presentation of general courses content on the basis of student insight and cultural development.
Discussion & Conclusion:
The speed of changes in educational system and society needs clearly states requisites of higher education reviews such that educated students shall be prepared to properly encounter issues of the twenty first century. Programmers, planners and executives of general courses in universities should continuously show required sensitivity against pathology and students needs in order to accomplish objectives and main functions of these courses. The obtained results from responded queries in this survey indicated that in setting objectives of general courses curriculum adequate heed of acquirers (students) needs is a true concern; students must determine their prioritization of deficiencies and felt needs and professors must distinguish student felt deficiencies and needs. High evaluation of student and faculty members perspectives and priorities for improvement of higher education general courses curriculum are within a small pace from one another although at times numerous prioritization discrepancies do exist. Nonetheless, by integration of professors and students perspectives and screening the most effective objectives of general courses curriculum can be achieved. These results are in consistency with Koshi (2013) and Arefi (2009) findings. What distinguished by students and professors for general courses curriculum needs and prioritization of curriculum elements (objectives, contents, teaching method, evaluation and course categories) explains educational deficiencies and voids existing in general courses and they have to buckle up with issues as such. Though, the obvious rests on the direct relation of students with these courses whereby the outcome of the benefits and impacts of these courses determine the extent of needs; what may be more effective is the ability to identify the needs and informing planners of require general courses in respect to objectives, content, method of teaching, evaluation method and rich educational materials. General courses are as highly significant as the main and specialized courses and observation of students needs that can prosper and motivate them in their desire to be entangled with these courses. In terms of course categories however, it can be stated that students who feel course categories must be included in the curriculum of general courses are distinguished as being weak and having lack of information. They are also so disabled that make higher education planners more concerned in separation. Therefore higher accuracy is indispensable in this case.
Reference
- Boyer,Ernest (1987),Colleges:The undergudate Experience in America carenegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
- Brubacher. John (1980). Philosophy of Higher Education.
- Conrad, C. F. (1978). The undergraduate Curricuulum : A Guide to Innovation Reform. Westview Press
- Johnson D. Kent, Ratcliff James L. Gaff Jerry G.(2004). A Decade of Change in General Education, New Direction for Higher Education. No. 125, spring.
- Stark, Joan. & Lattuca, Lisa (1997). Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Action. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
- Stark, Joan. & Lattuca, Lisa (1997). Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Action. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
- Majidi MR, Fatehi A. Students' attitudes towards Islamic timetabling," Journal of Research and Planning in Higher education. 2007; 41:34-50.
- Maclup, F. (1974). The illusion of higher education. In: Brubacher,John S.(1998). The philosophy of higher education.
[1] MSc in course curriculum
[2] Assistant Professor in Alame Tabatabaei University
[3] Assistant Professor in Alame Tabatabaei University
Email: