Anat Cell Biol.  2014 Dec;47(4):259-266. 10.5115/acb.2014.47.4.259.

Outcome-based self-assessment on a team-teaching subject in the medical school

• Yoon SP
• Cho SS

• KMID: 1882605
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5115/acb.2014.47.4.259

Abstract

We attempted to investigate the reason why the students got a worse grade in gross anatomy and the way how we can improve upon the teaching method since there were gaps between teaching and learning under recently changed integration curriculum. General characteristics of students and exploratory factors to testify the validity were compared between year 2011 and 2012. Students were asked to complete a short survey with a Likert scale. The results were as follows: although the percentage of acceptable items was similar between professors, professor C preferred questions with adequate item discrimination and inappropriate item difficulty whereas professor Y preferred adequate item discrimination and appropriate item difficulty with statistical significance (P<0.01). The survey revealed that 26.5% of total students gave up the exam on gross anatomy of professor Y irrespective of years. These results suggested that students were affected by the corrected item difficulty rather than item discrimination in order to obtain academic achievement. Therefore, professors in a team-teaching subject should reach a consensus on an item difficulty with proper teaching methods.

Keyword

Assessment; Integrated curriculum; Outcome; Team-teaching

MeSH Terms

Consensus
Curriculum
Discrimination (Psychology)
Humans
Learning
Schools, Medical*
Self-Assessment*
Teaching

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The academic achievement scores of professor Y (A) and professor C (B) in 2011 and 2012. Although the total scores showed no significant differences comparing 2011 and 2012 (see Table 4 also), there was a wide gap between two professors in 2012. Limbs, introduction and limbs; Head, head and neck.

• 

  Fig. 2 Classification of items according to item difficulty and item discrimination in 2012. Although the percentage of excellent and good items of each professor was similar, professor C preferred questions with adequate item discrimination and inappropriate item difficulty whereas professor Y preferred adequate item discrimination and appropriate item difficulty with statistical significance (P<0.01). The number of items was appeared in order as professor C and professor Y.

• 

  Fig. 3 The number of students in upper and lower grades in each test. To investigate whether students were not adapted for a certain professor, there was no significant difference between groups and among tests.

Reference

1. Patel KM, Moxham BJ. Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clin Anat. 2006; 19:132–141.

2. Rizzolo LJ, Rando WC, O'Brien MK, Haims AH, Abrahams JJ, Stewart WB. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2010; 3:109–120.

3. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ. 2010; 3:83–93.

4. Klement BJ, Paulsen DF, Wineski LE. Anatomy as the backbone of an integrated first year medical curriculum: design and implementation. Anat Sci Educ. 2011; 4:157–169.

5. Drake RL, Lowrie DJ Jr, Prewitt CM. Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec. 2002; 269:118–122.

6. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2:253–259.

7. Bergman EM, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. Why don't they know enough about anatomy? A narrative review. Med Teach. 2011; 33:403–409.

8. Oh SA, Chung EK, Rhee JA, Baik YH. An evaluation of integrated curriculum based on students' perspective. Korean J Med Educ. 2007; 19:305–311.

9. Cook L, Friend M. Co-teaching: guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus Except Child. 1995; 28:1–16.

10. Hwang YI. Reasonable hours of lecture and dissection for anatomy education in medical school. In : 60th Congress of Korean Association of Anatomists; 2010 Oct 20-23; Jeju, Korea. p. S1-1: 22.

11. Kulik JA, McKeachie WJ. The evaluation of teachers in higher education. Rev Res Educ. 1975; 3:210–240.

12. Kaplan RM, Saccuzzo DP. Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. 6th ed. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.;2004.

13. Lee YM, So YH, Ahn DS, Rhee KJ, Im H. Psychometric analysis of comprehensive basic medical sciences examination. Korean J Med Educ. 2002; 14:301–306.

14. Park JC, Kim KS. A comparison between discrimination indices and item-response theory using the Rasch Model in a clinical course written examination of a medical school. Korean J Med Educ. 2012; 24:15–21.

15. Korean Association of Anatomists. Human anatomy. 2nd ed. Seoul: Korea Medical Book Publisher;2005.

16. 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; 191:541–546.

17. 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 Spec Educ. 1999; 20:36–49.

18. Murawski WW, Swanson HL. A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: where are the data? Remedial Spec Educ. 2001; 22:258–267.

19. Jelsing EJ, Lachman N, O'Neil AE, Pawlina W. Can a flexible medical curriculum promote student learning and satisfaction? Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2007; 36:713–718.

20. 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; 2:150–155.

21. Reilly FD. Outcomes from building system courseware for teaching and testing in a discipline-based human structure curriculum. Anat Sci Educ. 2011; 4:190–194.

22. Chariker JH, Naaz F, Pani JR. Item difficulty in the evaluation of computer-based instruction: an example from neuroanatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2012; 5:63–75.

23. Gruppen LD. Outcome-based medical education: implications, opportunities, and challenges. Korean J Med Educ. 2012; 24:281–285.