Approaches and Study Skills of Veterinary Medical Students: Effects of a Curricular Revision

Assessment of Veterinary Students' Responses to Questions Regarding Small Animal Pain Recognition and Analgesic Treatment Options

Pain recognition and treatment in companion animals are important aspects of veterinary medicine, yet the teaching of these concepts may not be adequate at all academic institutions. This study was designed to evaluate veterinary students' ability to recall signs of pain and specific analgesic drugs in dogs and cats. We hypothesized that students in the fourth, or final, year of their veterinary curriculum would have a better understanding of pain recognition and be able to recall more analgesic options. A brief, voluntary, and anonymous open question survey was made available to all veterinary students, years 1 to 4, at our institution. The questions included, "How does a cat/dog show signs of pain?" and "What pain medications are used in cats/dogs?" Survey responses were collated according to the students' year in the curriculum, and the most common responses for signs of pain and analgesic medications recalled by the students in both the cat and dog were compared for significant differences. Results showed that students in the class of 2017 (seniors) had no superior recall of analgesic medications or recognition of pain in cats or dogs compared to the other classes. Vocalization was the most common sign of pain recalled with at least 50% responses from all classes. Carprofen was the most commonly recalled analgesic for dogs (the difference between classes, p = .04). Meloxicam was the most commonly recalled analgesic for cats (the difference among classes, p < .001). Based on these results, areas of improvement were identified for our analgesic curriculum.

Monitoring the Curriculum through the Student Perspective

Student input was deliberately included as part of the curriculum implementation and assessment plan at the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine. The new curriculum included design features to encourage deeper learning such as a spiral curriculum with cross-course integration, increased open time, and more active learning. Student well-being was seen as a simultaneous need. To gather overall perceptions of workload and well-being, student volunteers from each cohort were surveyed weekly starting in 2013. Survey questions asked about out-of-class work time, level of integration, extracurricular activities, student well-being habits, paid employment, and other factors. Survey questions were combined with course data to get a full picture of week quality, total course work time, extracurricular activities, and the effects of integration. Many of our hypotheses about curricular and extracurricular impacts on week quality were disproven. Week quality was most positively affected by student factors of sleep and exercise, whereas the curricular factors of out-of-class work time, total course work time, and examination hours had the strongest negative effects. A surprising finding was that open time, in-class hours, and paid employment hours had a minimal effect on week quality. Students identified excessively heavy semesters and uneven semester workloads that resulted in early revisions to the new curriculum. Student feedback provided a view of the curriculum that was not otherwise available and resulted in early and significant impacts on the new curriculum, and they provided insight into whether planned changes had occurred and how effective various factors were in reaching the curricular goals.

Curricular Revision and Reform: The Process, What Was Important, and Lessons Learned

Beginning in 2005, the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program at the University of California underwent major curricular review and reform. To provide information for others that follow, we have documented our process and commented on factors that were critical to success, as well as factors we found surprising, difficult, or problematic. The review and reform were initiated by the Executive Committee, who led the process and commissioned the committees. The planning stage took 6 years and involved four faculty committees, while the implementation stage took 5 years and was led by the Curriculum Committee. We are now in year 2 of the institutionalizing stage and no longer refer to our reform as the "new curriculum." The change was driven by a desire to improve the curriculum and the learning environment of the students by aligning the delivery of information with current teaching methodologies and implementing adult learning strategies. We moved from a department- and discipline-based curriculum to a school-wide integrated block curriculum that emphasized student-centered, inquiry-based learning. A limit was placed on in-class time to allow students to apply classroom knowledge by solving problems and cases. We found the journey long and arduous, requiring tremendous commitment and effort. In the change process, we learned the importance of adequate planning, leadership, communication, and a reward structure for those doing the "heavy lifting." Specific to our curricular design, we learned the importance of the block leader role, of setting clear expectations for students, and of partnering with students on the journey.