Assessment of individual disciplines before and after a shift to an active-learning and integrated curriculum.

Abstract

Aims: Curricular revisions that replace classroom lectures with student-led, self-directed learning are difficult for faculty and students due to fear of change and the unknown. The study aimed to compare student performance on standardized assessments across the transition from a traditional, discipline-based curriculum to an active-learning, integrated curriculum.

Methods: Using a database of faculty-generated questions, we used Welch's 2 sample t-tests and the Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare student performance in basic science disciplines before and after a curriculum renewal. Additionally, to investigate student outcomes on standardized assessments before and after the curricular transition, we used independent t-tests to compare results from the Comprehensive Basic Science Exam and simple differences between groups to evaluate performance on the US Medical Licensing Exam Step 1.

Results: Overall results from the question database as well as standardized test performance confirm that students performed the same or better in the new curriculum compared to past performance in the legacy curriculum as well as when compared to peers nationally. In some disciplines, students demonstrated improved performance. Of students who experienced the new curriculum, 8% more performed at or above the national comparison group on pharmacology-related questions than the legacy curriculum students.

Conclusions: We believe our curricular structure as well as our approach to tracking student performance could be a model for other health professions that are considering curricular transformation.