EVALUATION OF RENAL MODULE IN FIRST SPIRAL
Keywords:
Medical Education, Modular System, Integration, Examination, Assessment, ModularAbstract
Background: Medical education has undergone a paradigm shift from traditional disciplinary teaching to ‘outcome based integrated medical education system’. AJK Medical College, since its inception, made an effort to bring the basic, clinical and social sciences into one course by adopting an indigenously designed ‘system based vertically and horizontally integrated modular curriculum’ to meet the local needs and global demands at undergraduate level. This study aimed to assess ‘the Renal Module’ by evaluation of the processes of module designing, content delivery, students learning and academic environment. Methods: The renal module program was evaluated by using level 1 (reaction) and level 2 (learning) of the Kirkpatrick Model. The student performance was assessed in the integrated practical examination where basic science knowledge was linked with real life clinical tasks. Results: A large number of students and faculty involved in module delivery and assessment showed satisfaction over implementation of the module. Many gave feedback responses with suggestions to improve the organization, delivery and/or assessment of the module that identified the weakness and challenges in design, delivery and assessment of the module. Eleven problem areas were identified by 22 respondents, which were conveyed to the module team for evaluation and recommendation of the required corrective measures in design, delivery and assessment. Conclusion: Integrated modular medical curriculum can be implemented at any medical college to replace the traditional system and the evidence based practices are possible, even in resource constraint environment.
Pak J Physiol 2017;13(1):46–50
Downloads
References
2. Irby D, Wilkerson L. Educational innovations in academic medicine and environmental trends. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:370–6.
3. Ludmerer KM. Time to Heal: American Medical Education from the Turn of the Century to the Era of Managed Care. New York: Oxford Univ. Press;1999. p. 59–78.
4. Shimura T, Aramaki T, Shimizu K, Miyashita T, Adachi K, Teramoto A. Implementation of integrated medical curriculum in Japenese medical schools. J Nippon Med Sch 2004;71:11–16.
5. Vyas R, Jacob M, Faith M, Isaac B, Rabi S, Sathishkumar S, et al. An effective integrated learning programme in the first year of the medical course. Natl Med J India 2008;21:21–6.
6. Williams G, Lau A. Learning in practice. Reform of undergraduate medical teaching in the United Kingdom: a triumph of evangelism over common sense. Br Med J 2004;329:92–4.
7. Jacobs HH. Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 1989.
8. Muller JH, Jain S, Loeser H, Irby DM. Lessons learned about integrating a medical school curriculum: perceptions of students, faculty and curriculum leaders. Med Educ 2008;42:778–85.
9. Rangachari PK. Basic sciences in an integrated medical curriculum: The case of Pharmacology. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Prac 1997;2(2):163–71.
10. Custers EJ, Cate OT. Medical students' attitudes towards and perception of the basic sciences: a comparison between students in the old and the new curriculum at the University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. Med Educ 2003;36:1142–50.
11. Schmidt HG, Machiels-Bongaerts M, Hermans H, ten Cate TJ, Venekamp R, Boshuizen HP. The development of diagnostic competence: comparison of a problem based, an integrated, and a conventional medical curriculum. Acad Med 1996;71:658–64.
12. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problembased undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experiences from Linköping, Sweden. Med Teach 2002;24:280–5.
13. Al-Damegh S, Baig LA. Comparison of an integrated problem-based learning curriculum with the traditional discipline-based curriculum in KSA. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2005;15:605–8.
14. Kern DE, Thomas PA, Howard DM, Bass EB. Curriculum development for medical education: a six-step approach. London: The John Hopkins University Press;1998.
15. Naik SS. SMART Objectives (online). Available at: http://ezinearticles.com/?SMART-Objectives&id=109699 [30 11 2009] .
16. Notar CE, Zuelke DC, Wilson JD, Yunker BD. The table of Specification: Insuring accountability in teacher made tests. J Instruc Psychol 2004;31(2):115–29.
17. Kibler ME. Classroom Assessment and learning. New York: Longman;1999.
18. APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. Evidence-based practice in psychology. Am Psychol 2006;61(4):271–85.
19. Eells TD. Psychotherapy case formulation: history and current status. In: Eells TD, (Editor) Handbook of Psychotherapy Case Formulation, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press;2007. p. 3–32.
20. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/ performance. Acad Med 1990;65(Suppl 9):S63–7.
21. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating Training Programs (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler; 2006.
22. Sathishkumar S, Thomas N, Tharion E, Neelakantan N, Vyas R. Attitude of medical students towards early clinical exposure in learning endocrine physiology. BMC Med Educ 2007;7:30.
23. Nooruddin ZI, Jaffery MJ. A PBL-based structured genetic curriculum. Med Educ 2004;38:1194–5.
24. Verma K, D'Monte B, Adkoli BV, Nayar U, Kacker SK, (Editors). Inquiry driven strategies for innovation in medical education in India. New Delhi: AIIMS; 1991.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Pakistan Journal of Physiology, Pak J Physiol, PJP is FREE for research and academic purposes. It can be freely downloaded and stored, printed, presented, cited and quoted with full reference of, and acknowledgement to the PJP.
