Curriculum Mapping.
Reflective Journals
Nasser Abdullah Al Mufarji
Wright State University
EDT 8610-01
Educational Technology
Colleen Hayden
February 18, 2015
In the article by Jacobs, Salas, Cameron, Naguwa, and Kasuya (2005) creating the digitalized database in the medical school differs from school to school in the curriculum, assessments and teaching methods. Administrators should share the knowledge with the instructors because they are involved in entering the students’ data, tracking the performance and also trying their best to ensure that standards are met (Jacobs et al., 2005).
Some of the challenges in a medical schools is that there is always something new to be updated, which includes the content. In terms of accreditation there has always been pressure felt by the faculty to improve the curriculum even though the performance of students was outstanding. Developing the software that is cost effective and user friendly that can be used by any staff member is another challenge (Jacobs et al., 2005). There are hardly any standardized software that matches with what is taught in other medical schools across the country. Even though the US has a medical school curriculum that is a four-year program, other countries like Oman, has a seven-year program.
The benefits of having a digitalized database, information can be retreated very fast. This saves time as well as space compared to manual filing. By using key words, it is possible to generate reports and search for any information in any course. Course directors can easily track any gaps within the course, and the instructor is notified. The software presents a clear link between the content covered with the course content. Committee members can easily complete their task of meeting the LCME standards. It is possible to collaborate with other medical schools outside the US by allowing access to the software. They can view the curriculum in the US, Canada, and other countries by making a comparison (Jacobs et al., 2005).
In the article by Dexter, Koshland, Waer, and Anderson (2012) the mapping of the curriculum database to the USMLE had to be modified in the Arizona Medical College Ontology (AMKO). It is important to make these adjustments to fit the USMLE requirements. By doing so, it will be much easier to identify areas of weakness as well as strength. AMKO started mapping their curriculum database with the use of a spreadsheet software. The spreadsheet was tested for three months. It took a year for the final phase that lead to the mapping of the software to the USMLE standards. The software was then named Arizona Med database. The software proved to be efficient because the work that took days to complete was now done within seconds. Mapping the curriculum was an easy process. Faculty were able to do the evaluation through graphical representation. Content gaps, redundancies, relationships and instructional methods were clearly identified. The main challenge was integrating the AMKO software with Medical Subject Heading (MeSH). There was a mismatch in the vocabulary between the software (Dexter et al., 2012). In the article by Lee, Albright, Alkasab, Damassa, Wand, and Eaton (2003) Tufts Health Science Database (Tufts HSDB) was successful due to the hard work and experienced faculty who worked tirelessly compiling the information. Although it took years to develop the database, it proved to be very successful. The database included a portal for students and faculty to access course materials, evaluations and schedules, search engines like UMLS-indexed and quizzes linked to the course material. It was also possible to print the materials on a PDF file. The database provided an easy access for upgrading course content. Students managed to teach each other as they went through the course content well in advance. Faculty created direct links to relevant topics that needed more concentration by the students (Lee et al., 2003).
In the article by Uchiyama and Radin (2009) curriculum mapping in higher education was done through a collaboration of different instructors. A template was created and was used in the alignment of the courses. The curriculum mapping consisted of five different stages. Stage one was the developing stage. Instructors developed their course content. In stage two, faculty worked together to complete the remaining courses. The review process was done in stage three. Stage four identified any gaps, which were then revised in stage five. Stage six was a continuous process. This included meeting course requirements. If the course did not meet the requirements, the process will start again from stage one. This template was then linked to the WebCT page. Storing and sharing information was easy with the use of technology. Collaboration by sharing knowledge among faculty members increased. Curriculum mapping became a continuous process as every year the courses were reviewed and changes were made.
To sum up, there are challenges to be considered in creating and using a curriculum database. There are hardly any standardized software that matches with what is taught in other medical schools across the country. It is possible to lease a software from a third party but there are drawbacks when something new has to be added. The mapping of the software with the USMLE requirements is the main challenge.
In contrast to the above statement, there are more benefits to creating and using a curriculum database. Information is available at any time and is accessed anywhere. Course directors can easily track any gaps within the course, and the instructor is notified. Committee members can easily complete their task of meeting the LCME standards. It is possible to collaborate with other medical schools outside the US by allowing access to the software. Technology proved to be efficient for the work that took days to complete was now done within seconds.
Reference
Dexter, J., Koshland, G., Waer, A., & Anderson, D. (2012). Mapping a curriculum
database to the USMLE Step 1 content outline. Medical Teacher, 34, e666-e675.
Jacobs, J., Salas, A., Cameron, T., Naguwa, G., & Kasuya, R. (2005). Implementing an online curriculum management database in a problem-Based learning curriculum. Academic Medicine, 80(9), 840-846.
Lee, M. Y., Albright, S. A., Alkasab, T., Damassa, D. A., Wand, P. J., & Eaton, E. K. (2003). Tufts Health Sciences Database: Lessons, issues, and opportunities. Academic Medicine, 78(3), 254-264.
Uchiyama, K.P., & Radin, J.L. (2009). Curriculum mapping in higher education: A vehicle for
collaboration. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), 271-280.