Individual class evaluation and effective teaching characteristics in integrated curricula

Abstract

BackgroundIn an integrated curriculum, multiple instructors take part in a course in the form of team teaching. Accordingly, medical schools strive to manage each course run by numerous instructors. As part of the curriculum management, course evaluation is conducted, but a single, retrospective course evaluation does not comprehensively capture student perception of classes by different instructors. This study aimed to demonstrate the need for individual class evaluation, and further to identify teaching characteristics that instructors need to keep in mind when preparing classes.MethodsFrom 2014 to 2015, students at one medical school left comments on evaluation forms after each class. Courses were also assessed after each course. Their comments were categorized by connotation (positive or negative) and by subject. Within each subject category, test scores were compared between positively and negatively mentioned classes. The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to test group differences in scores. The same method was applied to the course evaluation data.ResultsTest results for course evaluation showed group difference only in the practice/participation category. However, test results for individual class evaluation showed group differences in six categories: difficulty, main points, attitude, media/contents, interest, and materials. That is, the test scores of classes positively mentioned in six domains were significantly higher than those of negatively mentioned classes.ConclusionsIt was proved that individual class evaluation is needed to manage multi-instructor courses in integrated curricula of medical schools. Based on the students’ extensive feedback, we identified teaching characteristics statistically related to academic achievement. School authorities can utilize these findings to encourage instructors to develop effective teaching characteristics in class preparation.

A systematic review to investigate student performance and their learning experiences within integrated healthcare curricula

“…These 40 studies reported integrated educational interventions employed across medicine (n=28) [10-12, 16-21, 23-25, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38-41, 44-49], pharmacy (n=11) [13-15, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 42],and dentistry (n=1) [22] in institutions worldwide: United States of America (n=14) [11, 13-15, 24-27, 29, 30, 32, 40, 42, 46], India (n=7) [10, 18-20, 28, 33, 41], United Kingdom (n=6) [22,35,37,39,43], Middle East (n=4) [16,17,23,31], the Netherlands (n=4) [31,44,48,49], Belgium (n=2) [45,47], and one from each of: Stockholm [12], Brazil [21], Germany [36], and Korea [38].…”

“…The number of students experiencing the integrated educational activities was not always described, but where included, cohorts varied from relatively small, approximately 30-40, to very large, approximately 1000-2000 students. Most studies, (n=34) adopted surveys to capture student feedback [10,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][34][35][36][37][38][39][43][44][45][46][47][48][49], six studies employed student interviews or focus groups [11,12,27,29,36,37] and 24 assessed student performance at a terminal assessment [10,14,15,17,18,21,[23]…”

“…The studies described CI of varying lengths, from a singular workshop (n=2) [23,37] [11,12,16,22,27,34,36,[38][39][40]44,45,47,49]. Not all authors outlined the aims for adopting integrative curricula strategies.…”

“…Two studies described interventions at the correlation [26,32], and at the multidisciplinary levels [14,31], and one at the complementary level [42]. It was unclear in six studies, due to the lack of detail provided [19,30,33,34,38,47]. The most common substrate for navigating the curricula were organ systems (n=11) [10,11,14,16,17,19,28,30,34,40,45], clinical cases (n= 7) [13,18,[20][21][22]31,37] and medical conditions/symptoms (n=6) [15,25,27,31,35,46].…”

“…A range of teaching strategies have been adopted to deliver the integrated interventions. In most cases a mix of environments within the same intervention are described to include: problem-based learning (PBL) [10,21,31,39,40,[43][44][45][46][47], team-based learning (TBL) [27,38], case-based learning [11,14,15,[18][19][20]22,28,29,35,37,38,40,42,45], small-group teaching [10,11,14,19,34,39,45,47], interactive lectures [19,20,24,29,40,41], simulations [19,20,22] and clinical exposure/visits [10,11,13,19,…”