Effect of integrating research skills with basic sciences in an interdisciplinary integrated endocrine module on students’ satisfaction and performance

Abstract

Background: A system-based integrated curriculum has been implemented at Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University since the academic year 2006/2007. There were many calls to increase the integration level and to integrate the scientific research skills into the medical curriculum. Objectives: This study aimed to document the steps taken to establish a higher level of integration of basic sciences along with the scientific research skills and to assess the effect of such changes on student satisfaction and performance. Methods: The integration level among the endocrine basic sciences was increased from the temporal co-ordination to the interdisciplinary level. Students' assessment methods were modified accordingly. Scientific research skills were incorporated into the module. Students' satisfaction and performance were compared before and after implementation of these changes. Results: A significant increase in students' satisfaction with the module organization was recorded. A significant increase in students' self-reported motivation to study the endocrine subject matter as well as improvement of their research skills was also reported compared to that of the students studied the module before the reform. The percentage of students got grade an after modular reform was significantly higher compared to those who studied the traditional module while the overall success rate showed non-significant increase. Conclusion: This interdisciplinary integrated endocrine module provides framework and tips for module construction that would improve critical thinking skills, research skill and prepare the students to be life-long learners.

A systematic review to investigate student performance and their learning experiences within integrated healthcare curricula

“…These 40 studies reported integrated educational interventions employed across medicine (n=28) [10-12, 16-21, 23-25, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38-41, 44-49], pharmacy (n=11) [13-15, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 42],and dentistry (n=1) [22] in institutions worldwide: United States of America (n=14) [11, 13-15, 24-27, 29, 30, 32, 40, 42, 46], India (n=7) [10, 18-20, 28, 33, 41], United Kingdom (n=6) [22,35,37,39,43], Middle East (n=4) [16,17,23,31], the Netherlands (n=4) [31,44,48,49], Belgium (n=2) [45,47], and one from each of: Stockholm [12], Brazil [21], Germany [36], and Korea [38].…”

“…The number of students experiencing the integrated educational activities was not always described, but where included, cohorts varied from relatively small, approximately 30-40, to very large, approximately 1000-2000 students. Most studies, (n=34) adopted surveys to capture student feedback [10,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][34][35][36][37][38][39][43][44][45][46][47][48][49], six studies employed student interviews or focus groups [11,12,27,29,36,37] and 24 assessed student performance at a terminal assessment [10,14,15,17,18,21,[23]…”

“…Where this was included, the goals most prominently related to the design of a student learning environment to improve active and self-directed learning [10,13,16,[18][19][20]46]. There was some focus on the desire to increase student knowledge development, specifically to improve knowledge integration across different disciplines [11,12,14,21,25,28,29,32,35,36,37,39,42,44], and to augment student skills development [10,16,17,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]32,46] e.g. critical thinking, problem-solving, and clinical reasoning.…”

“…critical thinking, problem-solving, and clinical reasoning. Half of the studies (n=20) described activities at the interdisciplinary level of integration [12,13,[15][16][17][18]20,21,[23][24][25][27][28][29]31,35,37,[44][45][46] and eight described elements of, or a full curriculum, at the transdisciplinary level [10,11,22,[39][40][41]43,49]. Two studies described interventions at the correlation [26,32], and at the multidisciplinary levels [14,31], and one at the complementary level [42].…”

“…It was unclear in six studies, due to the lack of detail provided [19,30,33,34,38,47]. The most common substrate for navigating the curricula were organ systems (n=11) [10,11,14,16,17,19,28,30,34,40,45], clinical cases (n= 7) [13,18,[20][21][22]31,37] and medical conditions/symptoms (n=6) [15,25,27,31,35,46].…”