The Curriculum Review Board (CRB) had asked for input from faculty and maybe from alumni regarding the past curriculum (pre-1997) and the current curriculum (1997-present). Those curricula are attached. Please let me know the following:
- What, if anything, was better about the pre-1997 curriculum?
- What, if anything, is better about the current curriculum?
- What problems existed before or exist now and what solutions do you see?
- Any general comments?
Peggy
Welcome to the curriculum revision site for the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine.
Periodic review of the curriculum is a necessary part of the continuous improvement expected of any accredited program in higher learning. The current curriculum was implemented in 1997. The AVMA Council on Education (COE) expects evidence of ongoing curriculum review and reform as a component of accreditation. The COE accreditation standard of Outcomes Assessment, which includes assessment of nine specific clinical competencies, drives the curriculum without prescribing specifics of the curriculum at any given school.
There has been significant drift since the current curriculum was implemented. Examples include increase in credit hours and contact time, decreased integration of content within and across semesters, lack of clarity regarding what content is core in each course and in the curriculum as a whole, and a perceived lack of striving for the broad goals of critical thinking and appropriate understanding and use of evidence.
Cost containment was not a stated goal of the previous curriculum revision. In the current budgetary environment, cost to deliver the current curriculum must be determined and associated efforts undertaken to decrease cost of delivery of a proposed curriculum. Associated calculations must include re-evaluation of assigned credit hours and faculty time invested in teaching and teacher development. With this curriculum review, the College will:
• Ensure appropriate courses are available for Minnesota DVM students and potentially for students at other sites
• Create flexibility in the early part of the curriculum to give students some control over cost, increase opportunities for altered class size without adding teaching space available
• Create graduates with entry-level competence and confidence and provide the scientific foundation required for acquisition of discipline or species expertise, including an emphasis on critical thinking that integrates basic science and clinical learning, and appropriate understanding and use of the veterinary literature
• Create graduates interested in and capable of career paths outside of practice
• Decrease cost of curriculum delivery
The curriculum review to be undertaken by the College will be led by a faculty Curriculum Review Board (CRB).
The members of the CRB are responsible for:
• Creating, with the Assistant Dean of Education, a work plan for curriculum revision
• Soliciting and integrating information from appropriate groups to guide decisions about curriculum reform
• Participating in creation of rubrics for determination of core content, credit hour calculation, calculation of effort required to provide instruction, and other rubrics necessary to permit determination of cost of delivery of current curriculum and a proposed curriculum
• Regularly meeting with any interested parties to explain progress of the curriculum revision and to answer questions
• Working with course coordinators to best define core content, create appropriate learning objectives, and understand associated activities and assessments
• Working with each other to develop plans for horizontal and vertical integration of the curriculum and make recommendations to the CVM faculty regarding a proposed curriculum
Members of the faculty leading this effort are:
Dr. Peggy Root Kustritz, Assistant Dean of Education
Curriculum Review Board (CRB) members:
- Dr. David Brown (VBS)
- Dr. Jim Mickelson (VBS)
- Dr. Mike Conzemius (VCS)
- Dr. Dan Feeney (VCS)
- Dr. John Fetrow (VPM)
- Dr. Erin Malone (VPM)
Materials will be posted regularly. Input from faculty, staff, students, and outside constituents is greatly desired.
Bookmark this page and come back often. Please submit your comments! Without input, we cannot generate meaningful curricular reform. Thanks!
Peggy
