Impact of outcome-based assessment on student learning and faculty instructional practices

Experiences from Two Ways of Integrating Pre- and Post-course Multiple-choice Assessment Questions in Educational Events for Surgeons

To examine how to optimise the integration of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for learning in continuing professional development (CPD) events in surgery, we implemented and evaluated two methods in two subspecialities over multiple years. The same 12 MCQs were administered pre- and post-event in 66 facial trauma courses. Two different sets of 10 MCQs were administered pre- and post-event in 21 small animal fracture courses. We performed standard psychometric tests on responses from participants who completed both the pre- and post-event assessment. The average difficulty index pre-course was 57% with a discrimination index of 0.20 for small animal fractures and 53% with a discrimination index of 0.15 for facial trauma. For the majority of the individual MCQs, the scores were between 30%-70% and the discrimination index was >0.10. The difficulty index post-course increased in both groups (to 75% and 62%). The pre-course MCQs resulted in an average score in the expected range for both formats suggesting they were appropriate for the intended level of difficulty and an appropriate pre-course learning activity. Post-course completion resulted in increased scores with both formats. Both delivery methods worked well in all regions and overall quality depends on applying a solid item development and validation process.

Methods Used to Assess Student Performance and Course Outcomes at the National Center of Excellence in Dairy Production Medicine Education for Veterinarians

Between 2012 and 2014, three cohorts of senior veterinary students participated in an 8-week dairy production medicine course created by the National Center of Excellence in Dairy Production Medicine Education for Veterinarians. One goal of this course is to better prepare veterinary students to serve the increasingly complex needs of the dairy industry. In this article, we describe the assessment methods and student performance outcomes of those first three cohorts. A combination of assessment methods was used, including pre- and post-testing; instructor observations and scores on individual and group projects, including a final integrative project; and peer evaluation. Student feedback, collected via anonymous survey, provided insight into students' perceptions about the course and their learning. Performance and feedback suggest that the course was successful in preparing students for careers using skills in dairy production medicine. Pre- and post-testing was conducted for most topic modules in the course. The mean (median) pre- and post-test scores were 47% (50% ) and 83% (88%), respectively. The mean improvement in score was significant (p < .002) for all modules and cohorts. Students indicated a moderate or high degree of confidence in performing dairy production medicine skills after each module. Of students in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively, 55%, 75%, and 82% felt they could provide dairy production medicine services (e.g., records analysis, problem investigation, protocol and standard operating procedure design) either alone or with some mentoring, immediately after graduation. In addition, assessment results and student feedback enabled timely course modifications during these first three cohorts.

Veterinary Curricula Today: Curricular Management and Renewal at AAVMC Member Institutions

Renewing a veterinary curriculum is challenging work and its impact is difficult to measure. Academic leaders are charged with regular review and updating of their curricula, but have few resources available to guide their efforts. Due to the paucity of published veterinary reports, most turn to colleagues at other veterinary schools for insider advice, while a few undertake the task of adapting information from the educational literature to suit the needs of the veterinary profession. In response to this paucity, we proposed a theme issue on curricular renewal and surveyed academic leaders regarding curricular challenges and major renewal efforts underway. We compiled the results of this survey (with respondents from 38 veterinary colleges) as well as publicly available information to create a digest of curricular activities at AAVMC member institutions. This introductory article summarizes the key survey findings, describes the methods used to create the curricular digest, and presents information about key aspects of selected programs. Our overarching research questions were as follows: (1) What was the extent and nature of curricular change at AAVMC-accredited veterinary colleges over the past 5 years? and (2) How are curricula and curricular changes managed at AAVMC accredited veterinary colleges? The appended curricular digests provide selected details of current DVM curricula at participating institutions. Additional articles in this issue report on institutional change efforts in more detail. It is our hope that this issue will help to pave the way for future curricular development, research, and peer-to-peer collaboration.

Curriculum Review and Revision at the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine

Curriculum review is an essential part of ongoing curriculum development, and is a mandate of the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Education (AVMA COE), the accrediting body of all North American schools and colleges of veterinary medicine. This article describes the steps in curriculum review undertaken by the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine (UMN CVM) in response to this mandate from the COE and to a recommendation from a recent collegiate review that was part of a larger university-level strategic planning effort. The challenges of reviewing and revising the curriculum within a short time frame were met by appointing a dedicated curriculum review board and by engaging students and faculty groups, both as focus groups and as specific faculty work sections within disciplines. Faculty voting on the process was very valuable as it permitted the curriculum review board and faculty groups to move ahead knowing there was a process in place for reassessment if most faculty did not agree with recommendations. Consistent support from the dean of the college and other administrators was vital in helping maintain momentum for curriculum review.