A Student-Led Methodology for Evaluating Curricular Redundancy
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Curricular redundancy can be a significant problem for any educational curriculum. Redundancy can be both desirable and undesirable, but differentiating the two can be quite challenging. Further, pinpointing undesirable redundancy and quantifying it so as to produce an estimate of inefficiency is even more difficult.
Purpose: The purpose of this research is to describe a student-led strategy for evaluating redundancy in a highly integrated medical school curriculum. It is our hope that the methodology presented here will serve as a useful evaluation model for persons attempting similar work in various educational arenas.
Setting: A highly-integrated medical school at a large public university.
Intervention: This research did not require an intervention.
Research Design: We identified two advanced medical students and asked them to identify redundant material across the first two years of the medical school curriculum. The students had to operationalize ‘redundancy’, develop an evaluation plan/framework, and evaluate the extent to which undesirable redundancy was prevalent in the current curriculum.
Data Collection and Analysis: Students reviewed course syllabi, notes, and materials and documented the amount of redundant material they found in the curriculum.
Findings: A total of approximately 167 hours, or 8.35 weeks, could be eliminated from the curriculum; the vast majority of the redundancy occurred as a result of small group activities.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Bernstein, A. (1996). A feminist revisit to the first-year curriculum. Journal of Legal Education, 46(2), 217-232.
Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1114
Dalton, B., & Wright, L. (2004). Eliciting student perceptions regarding curriculum redundancy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 24, 1-2, 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v24n01_04 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v24n01_04
Hanson, L. (1992). The concept of redundancy in television learning research: Questions of meaning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19(1), 7-13.
Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE Guide No.21: Curriculum mapping: a tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 23(2) 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590120036547 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590120036547
Lam, K. Y., & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Word repetition, masked orthographic priming, and language switching: Bilingual studies and BIA+ simulations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(5), 487-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2010.488283 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2010.488283
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning(1sted.). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164603 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164603
Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380-386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380
Ornstein, A. C., and Hunkins, F. (1993). Curriculum foundations, principles, and theory. (2nd edition) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Scriven, M. (1980). The logic of evaluation. Iverness, CA: Edgepress.
Stambaugh, L. (2011). When repetition isn't the best practice strategy: Effects of blocked and random practice schedules. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(4), 368-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429410385945 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429410385945
USMLE (2012). United States medical licensing examination: Step 1 content outlines. Retrieved January 14, 2013 from http://www.usmle.org/step-1/#content-outlines.