PURPOSE: This study aims at to make intermediate-term evaluations of a curriculum by investigating its development, operation and outcomes 2 years after its revision. METHODS: A survey using 5-point-Lickert scale questionnaires was given to the group of directors who developed the curriculum, instructors who only used it in their classes, and a student group from the first and second grades. Focus group interviews were performed in the professor groups. RESULTS: Curricular reform was evaluated as being systematic, democratic, and positive in general. Both groups answered questions positively about the relevance of the integrated curriculum and introduction of clinical medicine (ICM), graded as 3.4 (professor) and 3.5 (student). As for problem-based learning (PBL) and the patient-doctor-society (PDS), the professor group responded more positively than students. The 'web-based learning center' was recognized positively by many more students (4.01) than professors (2.75). With regard to the education outcome, professors gave 3.3 points and students 3.5 to an item that asked 'whether students attained the learning goal or not?' Professors, through interviews, showed their satisfaction with the attempt to reform the curriculum, but they pointed out that long-term evaluations should be performed. CONCLUSION: The interim evaluation of the revised curriculum, from its planning to its effects, affirmed by several suggestions to be successful in the long run through 1) enhancement of systematic participation and communication, 2) further integration, 3) steady evaluation, 4) greater effort on professional development, and 5) active interaction between professors and students.
PURPOSE: This study aims at to make intermediate-term evaluations of a curriculum by investigating its development, operation and outcomes 2 years after its revision. METHODS: A survey using 5-point-Lickert scale questionnaires was given to the group of directors who developed the curriculum, instructors who only used it in their classes, and a student group from the first and second grades. Focus group interviews were performed in the professor groups. RESULTS: Curricular reform was evaluated as being systematic, democratic, and positive in general. Both groups answered questions positively about the relevance of the integrated curriculum and introduction of clinical medicine (ICM), graded as 3.4 (professor) and 3.5 (student). As for problem-based learning (PBL) and the patient-doctor-society (PDS), the professor group responded more positively than students. The 'web-based learning center' was recognized positively by many more students (4.01) than professors (2.75). With regard to the education outcome, professors gave 3.3 points and students 3.5 to an item that asked 'whether students attained the learning goal or not?' Professors, through interviews, showed their satisfaction with the attempt to reform the curriculum, but they pointed out that long-term evaluations should be performed. CONCLUSION: The interim evaluation of the revised curriculum, from its planning to its effects, affirmed by several suggestions to be successful in the long run through 1) enhancement of systematic participation and communication, 2) further integration, 3) steady evaluation, 4) greater effort on professional development, and 5) active interaction between professors and students.
Entities:
Keywords:
Curriculum; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Medical Schools