OBJECTIVE: : We outline the framework of a collaborative process to redesign an existing 5-year health education program, which may prove useful to other similar institutions. The aim was to strengthen evidence-based practice and curriculum alignment. METHODS: : A whole-of-program approach was used to restructure the existing courses into 3 "streams": professional practice, clinical research, and clinical science. The process incorporated a series of facilitated workshops organized by the department director of learning and teaching and the faculty facilitation team, and it was inclusive of all available members of the department, a clinic supervisor, a sessional (casual teaching) staff member, and a recent graduate of the program. RESULTS: : Unit content and assessments were restructured to progress the program learning outcomes from year to year. The undergraduate program was redesigned to create a more logical learning pathway for students. Consolidation of subject topics in the postgraduate program allowed for the development of stand-alone research-only units. CONCLUSION: : The mechanism of curriculum mapping allowed for discussion about the flow of information from year to year and how evidenced knowledge and understanding can be developed. It is necessary that everyone participates and understands the importance of program goals as developed by the process. Because drift in curriculum can occur incrementally over the years, to be effective, the program requires ongoing monitoring and regular collaboration to continue improvements.
OBJECTIVE: : We outline the framework of a collaborative process to redesign an existing 5-year health education program, which may prove useful to other similar institutions. The aim was to strengthen evidence-based practice and curriculum alignment. METHODS: : A whole-of-program approach was used to restructure the existing courses into 3 "streams": professional practice, clinical research, and clinical science. The process incorporated a series of facilitated workshops organized by the department director of learning and teaching and the faculty facilitation team, and it was inclusive of all available members of the department, a clinic supervisor, a sessional (casual teaching) staff member, and a recent graduate of the program. RESULTS: : Unit content and assessments were restructured to progress the program learning outcomes from year to year. The undergraduate program was redesigned to create a more logical learning pathway for students. Consolidation of subject topics in the postgraduate program allowed for the development of stand-alone research-only units. CONCLUSION: : The mechanism of curriculum mapping allowed for discussion about the flow of information from year to year and how evidenced knowledge and understanding can be developed. It is necessary that everyone participates and understands the importance of program goals as developed by the process. Because drift in curriculum can occur incrementally over the years, to be effective, the program requires ongoing monitoring and regular collaboration to continue improvements.
Keywords:
Chiropractic; Curriculum; Education; Evidence-Based Medicine