Premium
Teaching and Assessing Pharmacology Learning Using Different Approaches in UCSF’s Integrated Bridges Curriculum – Omnes viae Romam ducunt?
Author(s) -
Tuan Rupa Lalchandani,
Kruidering-Hall Marieke
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2020.34.s1.05545
Subject(s) - rubric , summative assessment , curriculum , clinical pharmacology , flipped classroom , modalities , medicine , medical education , pharmacology , psychology , formative assessment , mathematics education , pedagogy , social science , sociology
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between different teaching strategies of pharmacology content and performance on open‐ended question (OEQ) exams. BACKGROUND The UCSF Bridges curriculum is an integrated, organ systems‐based curriculum. Students learn via multiple modalities including A) live lectures, B) small groups, C) online videos, D) click‐through online PowerPoints and E) interactive case‐based wrap‐up sessions co‐taught with clinicians. Summative assessments for each block are OEQ and require application of knowledge. Pharmacology‐specific OEQ scores were gathered from all blocks that taught and assessed pharmacology: Ground School, “GS” (modalities A&B&C&E); Airways, Blood, Circulation, “ABC” (A&B&D); Renal, Endocrine, GI, and Nutrition, “REGN” (A&B&C&E+flashcards on exam); Pathogens & Host Defense, “PHD” (C&E+flashcards on exam); and Brain, Movement, & Behavior, “BMB” (C&E). METHODS We collected pharmacology OEQ scores from medical students in the 2017–2018 academic year. OEQs were scored by trained faculty on a scale of 1–6 using a holistic rubric: “meets expectations” (5,6), “borderline” (3,4) or “does not meet expectations” (1,2). OEQ scores were averaged and results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance in SPSS software. Three students who did not complete all blocks were removed from analysis. RESULTS Data was considered continuous and scores were not normally distributed. Mean performance on pharmacology OEQs was significantly different across blocks (GS: 5.56±0.03; ABC: 5.21±0.03; REGN: 5.07±0.03; PHD: 4.99±0.03; BMB: 5.45±0.03; ± SEM, n=149). CONCLUSION The class average in all blocks was >4.99, suggesting that a variety of teaching methods are effective. Small differences across blocks may be related to the specific methods used in each block. We are currently finalizing data collection from the 2018–2019 academic year, which will be analyzed and added to the current study.