Abstract
ObjectiveTo analyze and compare the curriculum and delivery of a Chinese and Australian university-level Chinese medicine program. MethodsA review of PubMed and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure for relevant educational papers was undertaken. Online and paper documents available at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and the Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CDUTCM) were read and analyzed. In addition, in-depth interviews with academics from the two universities were conducted during 2014 to 2015. ResultsThe two Chinese medicine programs share the common goal of providing health services to the local community, but differ in some aspects when the curricula are compared. Areas such as student profile, curriculum structure, teaching approaches and education quality assurance were found to be different. The UTS program adopts a “flipped learning” approach with the use of educational technology aiming at improving learning outcomes. On the other hand, the CDUTCM has better clinical facilities and specialist physician resources. ConclusionA better understanding of the different curricula and approaches to Chinese medicine education will facilitate student learning and educational outcomes.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
