Advertisement

Comparing Curricular Reform in Medical Schools and the Ship of Theseus: Insights Regarding Philosophical and Ideological Characteristics

  • Dinesh Kumar VEmail author
  • Aneesh Basheer
Commentary
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Most of the curricular reforms are either imprecise, lacking appropriate contextualization or keen in “lifting” the solution from one context and fixing it in some other context. The greatest obstacle for curricular reform is something intrinsic [philosophical and ideological] and related to the general disposition of educators to resist the change and love status quo. We would like to put forth that viewing reforms under these lenses is the ultimate requirement and when winds of reform begin to blow in curriculum, definitely it would become unstoppable and one reform would give birth to the necessity for other reform. This commentary intends to discuss the under emphasized intricacies related to curricular reform by comparing it with analogy of “The Ship of Theseus.”

Keywords

Curricular reform Philosophy Change resistance Reform failure 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

This submission is a commentary which does not amount to educational research and therefore, ethical approval and informed consent were not required.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Whitehead CR, Hodges BD, Austin Z. Captive on a carousel: discourses of ‘new’ in medical education 1910–2010. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2013;18:755–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Waterval DGJ, Frambach JM, Driessen EW, Scherpbier AJJA. Copy but not paste: a literature review of cross-border curriculum partnerships. J Stud Int Educ. 2015;19:65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruba P, Moffat A, Søndergaard H, Zobel J. What drives curriculum change? Sixth Australasian computing education conference (ACE2004), conferences in research and practice in information technology, vol. 30. 2004. Accessed online 26 August 2018, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=979983.
  4. 4.
    Rips LJ, Blok S, Newman G. Tracing the identity of objects. Psychol Rev. 2006;113:1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wagner T. Leadership for learning: an action theory of school change. Phi Delta Kappan. 2001;82(5):378–83.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore A, Edwards G, Halpin D, George R. Compliance, resistance and pragmatism: the (re) construction of schoolteacher identities in a period of intensive educational reform. Br Educ Res J. 2002;28(4):551–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zimmerman J. Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSP Bull. 2006;90(3):238–49.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bass BM. Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications. 5th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doménech-Betoret F. The educational situation quality model: recent advances. Front Psychol. 2018;9:328.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Velthuis F, Varpio L, Helmich E, Dekker H, Jaarsma ADC. Navigating the complexities of undergraduate medical curriculum change: change leaders’ perspectives. Acad Med. 2018;93:1503–10.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Venance SL, LaDonna KA, Watling CJ. Exploring frontline faculty perspectives after a curriculum change. Med Educ. 2014;48(10):998–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ketelaar E, Beijaard D, Boshuizen HPA, Den Brok PJ. Teachers’ positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sense making and agency. Teach Teach Educ. 2012;28(2):273–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breiting S. Mental ownership and participation for innovation in environmental education and education for sustainable development. In: Reid A, Jensen BB, Nikel J, Simovska V, editors. Participation and learning. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. p. 159–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spillane J, Reiser B, Reimer T. Policy implementation and cognition: reframing and refocusing implementation research. Rev Educ Res. 2002;72(3):387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Metcalfe J, Greene MJ. Metacognition of agency. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007;136(2):184–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corbett HD, Dawson J, Firestone W. School context and school change: implications for effective planning. New York: Teachers College Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holmboe ES. Competency-based medical education and the ghost of Kuhn: reflections on the messy and meaningful work of transformation. Acad Med. 2018;93(3):350–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson B. Polarity management: identifying and managing unsolvable problems. Amherst: HRD Press; 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and ResearchPuducherryIndia
  2. 2.Pondicherry Institute of Medical SciencesPuducherryIndia

Personalised recommendations