Theme: 5II Online learning 2
  • Currently 5.00/5
  • 1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 2
  • 3
  • 3
  • 4
  • 4
  • 5
  • 5

Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Logo
Online review and modification of undergraduate medical curricula in a web-based 'Learning Opportunities, Objectives and Outcome Platform' (LOOOP)
Authors: Axel Schunk*
Martin Dittmar*
Andreas Bietenbeck**
Simon Drees*
David Paul Weber*
Olaf Ahlers (presenter)*
Institutions: *Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin - Department for Curriculum Management, Berlin, Germany
**Klinikum rechts der Isar, Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Munich, Germany
 
Background

Knowledge, skills and attitudes (“objectives”) should be deliberate, deconstructed components of specific competencies. In addition, objectives should be aligned with learning opportunities and assessment and should be visable both for the own and for other faculties1,2,3,4. However, consideration of this consensus during curriculum development is a great challenge. Therefore, a web-based, dynamic “Learning Opportunities, Objectives and Outcome Platform” (LOOOP) was designed at Charité in Berlin to enable development of undergraduate medical curricula including curriculum mapping1,2,3. One elementary part of LOOOP is a sophisticated tool for review, development and versioning of objectives. This tool is available for the whole faculty from any computer with internet access.

Aim of this study was to evaluate the usage of this tool during the first three consecutive semesters after implementation.

Summary of Work

Online review of objectives in LOOOP consists of three steps (see figure 1):
- step 1: review by curriculum committee and suggestion of changes
- step 2: edition by responsible persons for each teaching unit
- step 3: final decision by curriulum committee in case of disagreement

 

Figure 1: Review of objectives in LOOOP
Depth of each objective is defined by verbs and categorised according to Anderson et. al.5, LVV: responsible person for the respective teaching unit, SoSe: summer, WiSe: winter, D: dimension, K: cognitive dimension, W: knowlegde dimension, R: RIME role6, V: verb 
    

 

Students comments to each objective are displayed and can therefore be considered during the review process (figure 2). 

Figure 2: Considering anonymous students comments during review
LVV: responsible person for the respective teaching unit, SoSe: summer, WiSe: winter, D: dimension, K: cognitive dimension, W: knowlegde dimension, R: RIME role6, V: verb 
   
 

All changes are tracked in a versioning system and can be viewed for all semesters since they have been put into LOOOP (see figure 3).

Usage data of all reviewed modules were anonymously extracted from LOOOP and were analysed concerning number of reviewed objectives and modified objectives to get an overview over the usage and therefore the acceptance of the online review system from winter 2012 to winter 2013.

Summary of Results

Number of reviewed objectives increased during the first three semesters after implementation of the online-tool. Percentage of modified objectives increased more than threefold during the same period (see table 1). 

Table 1: Number of reviewed and modified objectives

  winter
2012
summer
2013
winter
2013
number of reviewed objectives 565 1100 1625
number of modified objectives 60 274 556
percentage of modified objectives 10.6% 24.9% 34.2%
Conclusion

Acceptance of online-review and development of objectives in LOOOP increases constantly. This acceptance ensures aligment of competencies, objectives, learning opportunities, and assessment methods - both for primary and ongoing curriculum development.

 

Figure 3: Objective history displayed by the versioning system
LVV: responsible person for the respective teaching unit, SoSe: summer, WiSe: winter, D: dimension, K: cognitive dimension, W: knowlegde dimension, R: RIME role6, V: verb 
 

Take-home Messages

Online review of learning objectives is a widely accepted instrument and may be an opportunity for many faculties to support curriculum development and to involve substantial parts of the faculty into this process.

References

1. Harden, Med. Teach. 2002, 151-155
2. Willett, Med. Educ. 2008, 786-793
3. Ellaway et al, Med. Teach. 2014, 208-215
4. Hays, Med. Teach.. 2014, 459-462
5. Anderson et al., Stud. Educ. Eval. 2005, 102-113
6. Pangaro, Acad. Med. 1999, 1203-1207

 

Background
Summary of Work
Summary of Results
Conclusion
Take-home Messages
References
Send ePoster Link