PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
We attempted to investigate the effects of curricular change on a basic medical science, anatomy, based on academic achievements including Basic Medical Education Examination (BMEE).
We performed an analysis between the academic years of 2011 and 2012. Independent-samples t-test for the academic achievements, paired-samples t-test for the promotion, and correlation analysis for the related subcategory of the anatomy based on the results of BMEE, which was done with SPSS 22.0.
In this follow-up study for two academic years, the academic achievements decreased as the students went to the next grade under the changed curriculum of anatomy. The academic achievements decreased as the students went to the next grade in the academic year 2012 while it increased in 2011 (p<0.01). Although averages of school evaluations were similar between the academic years, the academic achievements were different from each other: it was higher in first BMEE for 2012, and in second BMEE for 2011 (p<0.05). Although the correlation was not found among school evaluations, first and second BMEE of 2011, the associations were seen both between school evaluations (p<0.01) and each BMEE (p<0.05), respectively, in 2012.
These results suggested that professors of medical school should continue to lead the direction of the curriculum improvement and management depending on the academic achievement, and also to monitor all the processes, maintaining a quality of the assessment system although it might be difficult to be representative or generalize for all medial schools.
References
1. Choi GY, Kim JM, Seo JH, Sohn HJ. Becoming a Doctor through Learning Anatomy – Narrative Analysis of the Educational Experience. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2009; 22:213–24. Korean.
2. Smith SF, Mathias HS. What impact does anatomy education have on clinical practice? Clin Anat. 2011; 24:113–9.
3. Ward PJ, Walker JJ. The influence of study methods and knowledge processing on academic success and longterm recall of anatomy learning by first-year veterinary students. Anat Sci Educ. 2008; 1:68–74.
4. van Lohuizen MT, Kuks JB, van Hell EA, Raat AN, Cohen-Schotanus J. Learning strategies during clerkships and their effects on clinical performance. Med Teach. 2009; 31:e494–9.
5. Oh SA, Chung EK, Rhee JA, Baik YH. An evaluation of integrated curriculum based on students'perspective. Korean J Med Educ. 2007; 19:305–11.
6. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ. 2010; 3:83–93.
7. Pabst R. Anatomy curriculum for medical students. What can be learned for future curricula from evaluations and questionnaires completed by students, anatomists and clinicians in different countries? Ann Anat. 2009; 191:541–6.
8. Patel KM, Moxham BJ. Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clin Anat. 2006; 19:132–41.
9. Cottam WW. Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors. Clin Anat. 1999; 12:55–65.
10. Ward PJ. First year medical students'approaches to study and their outcomes in a gross anatomy course. Clin Anat. 2011; 24:120–7.
11. Im SJ, Kam BS, Lee SY, Woo JS, Lee JT, Lee SH, et al. Study of Clinical Medical Teachers'Attitudes to the Knowledge of Gross Anatomy of Medical Students. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2014; 27:211–8. Korean.
12. Bergman EM, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. Why don't they know enough about anatomy? A narrative review. Med Teach. 2011; 33:403–9.
13. Hwang YI. Reasonable hours of lecture and dissection for anatomy education in medical school: the 60th Congress of Korean Association of Anatomists, 2010 Oct 20–23, Jeju, Korea. 2010; S1–1:22. Korean.
14. Lee YM, So YH, Ahn DS, Rhee KJ, Im H. Psychometric analysis of comprehensive basic medical science examination. Korean J Med Educ. 2002; 14:301–6. Korean.
15. Yoon SP, Cho SS. Outcome-based self-assessment on a team-teaching subject in the medical school. Anat Cell Biol. 2014; 47:259–66.
16. Rizzolo LJ, Rando WC, O'Brien MK, Haims AH, Abrahams JJ, Stewart WB. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative anatomy course. Aant Sci Educ. 2010; 3:109–20.
17. Lee SO, Lee SY, Baek S, Woo JS, Im SJ, Yune SJ, et al. Two-and-a-half year follow-up study of strategy factors in successful learning to predict academic achievements in medical education. Korean J Med Educ. 2015; 27:99–105. Korean.
18. Suh DJ. A New Direction for Basic Medical Science Education. Korean J Med Educ. 2013; 25:77–9. Korean.
19. Yu SH, Nam CM, Kim SI, Oh HJ. Cohort analysis on academic achievement of medical students. Korean J Med Educ. 1994; 6:20–8. Korean.
20. Gruppen LD. Outcome-based medical education: implications, opportunities, and challenges. Korean J Med Educ. 2012; 24:281–5.
21. Welch M, Brownell K, Sheridan SM. What's the score and game plan on teaming in schools? A review of the literature on team teaching and school-based problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education. 1999; 20:36–49.
22. Murawski WW, Swanson HL. A metaanalysis of co-teaching research: where are the data? Remedial and Special Education. 2001; 22:258–67.
23. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. A survey of student perceptions of team-based learning in anatomy curriculum: favorable views unrelated to grades. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2:150–5.
24. Reilly FD. Outcomes from building system courseware for teaching and testing in a discipline-based human structure curriculum. Anat Sci Educ. 2011; 4:190–4.
25. Shin HI, Jeon WT, Yang EB. Relationship between learning strategies and academic achievement in medical college and graduate medical school students. Korean J Med Educ. 2010; 22:197–204. Korean.
Table 1.
The average difference and descriptive statistics of the academic performance depending on admission year.
| Evaluation | Academic year | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 (n = 38) | 2012 (n = 36) | t | |
| School evaluation | 2.79±0.45 | 2.69±0.44 | – .982 |
| BMEE1 | 2.23±0.55 | 2.60±0.67 | 2.609∗ |
| BMEE2 | 2.74±0.60 | 2.44±0.56 | – 2.191∗ |
Table 2.
The correlation of details between the total scores of anatomy of academic year and Basic Medical Education Examination Ⅱ.
| Academic year | Chest | Chapter | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pelvis | LL | Head | Neck | Abd. | NA1 | NA2 | UL | ||
| 2011 | .20 | .61∗∗ | .63∗∗ | .48∗∗ | .69∗∗ | .54∗∗ | .38∗ | .29 | – .03 |
| 2012 | .70∗∗ | .36∗ | .51∗∗ | .22 | .49∗∗ | .46∗∗ | .43∗∗ | .49∗∗ | .41∗∗ |
Table 3.
The correlation of the academic achievements on a year-on-year basis.
Table 4.
The difference of the academic achievements on the school years based.
| Academic year | 2011 (n = 38) | 2012 (n = 36) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade Average±SD |
1 2.79±0.45 |
2 2.74±0.60 |
1 2.69±0.44 |
2 2.44±0.56 |
| t = – 3.48∗∗, p = .001 | t = 3.46∗∗, p = .001 | |||
Table 5.
The correlation between the total scores and curriculum details of the students in 2011.
| Grade | Chapter | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chest | Pelvis | LL | Head | Neck | Abd. | NA1 | NA2 | UL | |
| 1st | .20 | .61∗∗ | .63∗∗ | .48∗∗ | .69∗∗ | .54∗∗ | .38∗ | .29 | – .03 |
| 2nd | .44∗∗ | .34∗ | .54∗∗ | .32∗ | .62∗∗ | .46∗∗ | .44∗∗ | .31∗ | .19 |
XML Download