The Journal of Medical Education and Development

Introduction: Understanding the learning styles of students may help educational planning and improve the learning. This study aims to assess learning styles, and relevant determinants, of students who study in various disciplines of medical sciences at Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences (BUMS) in 2012.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 180 students from BUMS were selected randomly. Data were collected sing the Kolb learning style questionnaire during April/May 2012. One-way ANOVA, Student t-test, Chi-square or Fisher exact tests were used for analyzing the data.

Results: The mean age of participants was 29.3±7.0, majority of them were males. The preferred learning styles were diverger (76.7%), accommodator (12.8%), assimilator (7.8%) and converger (2.8%) respectively. The results showed that the factors such as age, sex, marriage status, father and mother education, grade point average (GPA) and academic degree could be important to determine learning style characteristics of students. The findings also indicate that the preferred learning style among the students with different GPAs or academic degrees are not different considerably.

Conclusion: Regarding the most preferred leaning style by the, proper planning to address proper teaching styles according to the preferred learning styles is necessary.

Introduction: Enhancing the quality and dynamicity of higher education programs requires continuous evaluation of curriculums. Reproductive health PhD program was established in 2006 in Iran while recommending that its curriculum be evaluated by assessing graduates’ performance in workplace and surveying students, faculty members and managers. This study aimed to explore challenges of the curriculum of reproductive health PhD program.

Methods: Employing a qualitative content analysis approach and using purposive and sometimes opportunistic sampling, experiences and viewpoints of 33 graduates and students of reproductive health PhD program, educational managers and reproductive health board members about the curriculum of reproductive health PhD program were collected through individual interviews and notes in 2014-15. Data were transcribed and important expressions were coded. Classification of similar codes led to preliminary categories. Five main categories were extracted by further classifications.

Results: The five main categories included inadequacy of course topics and contents, challenges of student education, failure in realizing curriculum goals, long research period, and ambiguity in graduates’ professional status were appeared; each of these included various subcategories.

Conclusion: Results showed that the curriculum of reproductive health PhD program required revisions to meet the program’s mission and designing courses such as sexual health and reinforcing the clinical nature of the program were necessary. Moreover, the results emphasized that the establishment of an independent educational department of reproductive health for managing higher education affairs and greater supervision of the reproductive health board on educational affairs was necessary. Furthermore, reproductive health specialists should be employed in different positions to meet society’s reproductive health needs.