Academic literature on the topic 'Curriculum evaluation. Sociology'

Ideology, Curriculum, and the New Sociology of Education. Taylor and Francis, 2006.

Ofsted. Inspecting sociology: 11-16 with guidance on self-evaluation. Ofsted, 2002.

Ideology and curriculum. 2nd ed. Routledge, 1990.

Cameron, McCarthy, and Dimitriadis Greg 1969-, eds. Ideology, curriculum, and the new sociology of education: Revisiting the work of Michael Apple. Routledge, 2006.

Goodson, Ivor F. The making of curriculum: Collected essays. Falmer, 1988.

Ofsted. Inspecting post-16: Sociology : with guidance on self-evaluation. Ofsted, 2001.

Ofsted. Inspecting post-16: Sociology : with guidance on self-evaluation. OFSTED, 2001.

Ofsted. Inspecting post-16.: With guidance on self-evaluation. Ofsted, 2002.

Ofsted. Inspecting post-16: History : with guidance on self-evaluation. Ofsted, 2001.

Ofsted. Inspecting post-16: Geography : with guidance on self-evaluation. Ofsted, 2001.

Burgess, Hilary. "Collaborating in Curriculum Research and Evaluation." In Sociology and Teaching. Routledge, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315213873-9.

"pology) should help the student acquire a holistic approach to health and disease and to recognize the interrelationships of cultural, social, psychologi-cal, and environmental factors with the psysiological and biochemical pro-cesses of the body" (Willard Report, 1966, p. 27). Evaluation of the Mandate The important potential role of sociology in the curriculum of the family physician programs has been endorsed repeatedly before, during, and since the publication of the above-mentioned blue-ribbon commission reports (Silver, 1963, p. 74-77; GP, 1966, p. 225-246; Harrell, 1970, p. 61-64). That potential role has been greatly enhanced by the passage of the Health Educa-tion and Manpower Act in 1976, which mandated that by 1980, 50% of all medical students graduating from medical school should be entering residen-cies in the three designated primary care specialties—internal medicine, pediatrics, and family practice. An additional aspect of this act was the allocation of some $40,000,000 for the expansion and improvement of existing family medicine residencies and for the creation of additional resi-dency programs. The question at hand—almost 12 years after these recommendations were submitted to medical educators-is whether a new breed of physicians is being produced by training in family medicine. Is there a new type of physi-cian who is "aware not only of his patient's physicial illness, but also of interrelations of family members and of family and community and socio-economic factors affecting the health of family members?" (Silver, 1965, p. 188-189). There are clearly two elements that must be distinguished in evaluating this mandate to train family physicians—one quantitative and the other qualitative. As far as quantitative changes in the attention paid to training family physicians, there can be no doubt that significant shifts have occurred in the past decade. In 1967, there were only three family medicine training programs in the United States, at the Universities of Miami (Florida), Roches-ter, and Oklahoma. By 1970 there were 49 programs, in 1975 there were 233, and in 1977 there were well over 300. In 1970 family practice became a." In Family Medicine. Routledge, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315060781-22.

Coelho, Lia Alencar, and Marcelo Machado De Luca de Oliveira Ribeiro. "Student ratings to evaluate the teaching effectiveness: Factors should be considered." In Fifth International Conference on Higher Education Advances. Universitat Politècnica València, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/head19.2019.9392.