Abstract
Curricular review is considered a necessary component for growth and enhancement of academic programs and requires time, energy, creativity, and persistence from both faculty and administration. At Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences (TAMU), the faculty and administration partnered with the university's Center for Teaching Excellence to create a faculty-driven, data-enhanced curricular redesign process. The 8-step process begins with the formation of a dedicated faculty curriculum design team to drive the redesign process and to support the college curriculum committee. The next steps include defining graduate outcomes and mapping the current curriculum to identify gaps and redundancies across the curriculum. Data are collected from internal and external stakeholders including veterinary students, faculty, alumni, and employers of graduates. Data collected through curriculum mapping and stakeholder engagement substantiate the curriculum redesign. The guidelines, supporting documents, and 8-step process developed at TAMU are provided to assist other veterinary schools in successful curricular redesign. This is the first of a two-part report that provides the background, context, and description of the process for charting the course for curricular change. The process involves defining expected learning outcomes for new graduates, conducting a curriculum mapping exercise, and collecting stakeholder data for curricular evaluation (steps 1–4). The second part of the report describes the development of rubrics that were applied to the graduate learning outcomes (steps 5–8) and engagement of faculty during the implementation phases of data-driven curriculum change.
Curricular review is considered a necessary component for growth and enhancement of academic programs and requires time, energy, creativity, and persistence from both faculty and administration. On a larger scale, a comprehensive redesign effort involves development of programmatic learning outcomes, mapping of the existing curriculum, and thorough curricular review including stakeholder data collection.1 In educational literature, there are various models established to guide the process of curricular redesign,2,3 however, there is a paucity of support or guidelines available for this process in veterinary medical education. In fact, most curricular redesign studies in veterinary medical education focus on changes at the course level rather than at the program level.4 There are additional challenges for program redesign in veterinary medicine including the lack of in-house expertise in curriculum design within many veterinary colleges,5 the faculty time commitment necessary to drive the process of curricular evaluation, and consideration of the many stakeholder groups involved within veterinary education.6 With these constraints and unique challenges in mind, the faculty and administration at Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences (TAMU) used both college and university resources to create a faculty-driven, data-enhanced curricular redesign process.
One of the potential constraints for any major curricular change within veterinary programs is the inherent lack of in-house pedagogical expertise.7 TAMU is fortunate to have a team of experts on campus at Texas A&M University's Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE), which provides college-wide professional development for teaching and learning as well as curriculum renewal. Experts at the CTE have published a data-driven, faculty-enhanced, and pedagogical consultant–supported model for curriculum redesign in higher education, and they have successfully employed this model in various colleges across campus.1,8 The program redesign (PRD) model serves as a new opportunity for faculty development that other programs can use to influence change at the organizational level. The model offers an insider's approach to faculty development in which educational developers establish long-term relationships with disciplinary experts to facilitate effective educational change. Fowler et al. underscore the importance of partnering with an educational developer to increase the likelihood for success by receiving not only pedagogical expertise but also project-management expertise and facilitation skills that take into account group dynamics and conflict resolution.9 Factors for successful change initiatives in higher education were also considered in the development of the PRD model. These factors included focusing on changing faculty beliefs about teaching and learning to ensure sustainable curriculum change, viewing the curriculum with a systematic rather than fragmented approach, and allowing sufficient time for change to occur.10 Additional factors that promote success in curricular redesign include maintaining constant communication among all stakeholders, involving external facilitators to guide the process and provide a non-biased approach, and creating opportunities for short-term success throughout the redesign effort.11 The following steps outline the process developed and implemented at TAMU.
The PRD process began with the designation of a team of faculty members to champion the effort, provide continuity, and sustain momentum throughout the curricular initiative. The obvious group to propel this initiative was the curriculum committee, which serves as the governing body for the curriculum. However, given the large-scale change effort for program redesign, a smaller group of ex officio curriculum committee members was appointed by the associate dean to act as the driving force and primary support for the curriculum committee during the redesign process. This dedicated team (referred to as the “redesign team” from this point forward) consisted of four faculty members and a consultant from the CTE. The four team members included a faculty member with an appointment in curriculum development and outcomes assessment, a faculty member and director of the clinical skills lab, a faculty member and director of the Center for Educational Technologies at TAMU, and an instructional design faculty member with a doctorate in agricultural education. These four faculty members dedicated 10%–80% of their faculty full-time equivalent (FTE) hours to the project. The CTE curricular consultant was invaluable for providing guidance, pedagogical expertise, facilitation, and a non-biased observer perspective during all developmental phases of the redesign process. In addition, the college funded a graduate assistant to assist the redesign team with time-consuming tasks such as data collection and transcription of focus groups and practitioner interviews.
In many allied health professions, schools use lists of graduate outcomes or competencies developed by governing bodies to support program-level outcomes.12,13 In veterinary medical education, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) established the nine clinical competencies that became an official benchmark for accreditation. The nine clinical competencies are listed in Standard 11 of the AVMA Policies & Procedures.14 The North American Veterinary Medical Education Consortium (NAVMEC) also recognized a set of non-technical competencies that are vitally important to the development of veterinary professionals.15 Veterinary colleges have combined, expanded, and defined in greater detail these competencies as they relate to individual programs.16,17
At TAMU, a document known as the New Graduate Outcomes (NGOs) was created to define the knowledge, skills, and attributes (KSAs) that a successful graduate should possess at the time of graduation and be able to employ on the first day of practice.18 The NGOs became the reference point for assessment of program effectiveness, development of instruments used in data collection, and mapping of the curriculum. The NGOs functioned as the scaffold for curricular change.
The original TAMU NGOs were based on the AVMA's nine clinical competencies. Four additional outcomes were added to fully encompass the qualities necessary for a successful veterinary graduate in today's society. These additional competencies consisted of non-technical skills and behaviors: team collaboration, practice management, and leadership skills; an appreciation of personal wellness, diversity, and inclusiveness; an understanding of legal and regulatory compliance; and a basic understanding of animal welfare. Performance criteria define the specific components of each outcome without the detail of how each outcome should be achieved. For example, if performing physical examination (PE) is a pinnacle achievement, PE is stated in the outcome, but the individual steps for performing PE are not detailed (e.g., cardiopulmonary auscultation). The NGO framework with example performance is provided in Appendix 1. Providing specificity without prescriptive detail was intentional in the creation of the NGOs to enable faculty the flexibility to develop independent instructional experiences and methodologies that optimize students' achievement of each outcome. Italicized terms in each statement align with Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning,19 and demonstrate a measurable progression of cognitive complexity for each NGO. The language of the performance criteria provides clarity regarding the level of mastery expected of the students. Within each NGO, performance criteria located near the top of the list represent lower levels of mastery, often associated with acquisition of foundational and/or pre-clinical knowledge, whereas items toward the bottom of the list represent higher levels of mastery required to assimilate and apply knowledge to complex problems and processes.
The redesign team created the original NGO framework, and the curriculum committee added the performance criteria. Once the NGOs and performance criteria were defined, wide-scale faculty input was obtained electronically. Recommendations from the DVM faculty served to enhance the framework and solidified its use as the foundation for the TAMU curriculum.
The next step in the PRD model included identifying gaps and redundancies within the educational program. This identification process began with a curriculum mapping project using the NGOs as the foundation. A team of TAMU educational technologists designed a custom web-based application known as Curriculum Connect. This in-house solution offered two major advantages: (1) it provided a user-friendly interface to support the efficient input/output of data by faculty and administrators, and (2) it provided the ability to integrate with other web-based applications currently used by TAMU. Using Curriculum Connect, the team cataloged information about each core course (i.e., required course), including a detailed outline of content in each lecture, laboratory experience, and learning activity. All instructional activities and assessments were mapped to the appropriate NGOs. The NGO data from the map were then aggregated across all courses, indicating the relative contact time currently allocated to teaching and assessing each NGO. These data enabled the redesign team and curriculum committee to fully assess areas of curricular misalignment and to guide decisions about potential changes required to ensure students were being instructed the KSAs necessary for veterinary practice as defined by the NGOs.
Stakeholder engagement was critical to the redesign effort because the data helped to determine how effectively the NGOs were incorporated into the present curriculum and how proficiently graduates were performing specific NGOs following graduation. The team identified a variety of both internal and external stakeholder groups to assist with evaluation and refinement of the NGOs. As internal stakeholders, students from all 4 years of the DVM program, TAMU faculty members, and alumni from both 1 and 3 years post-graduation were chosen to provide input. Practitioners who work alongside TAMU graduates and employers of our graduates were selected as external stakeholders.
In the initial phases of stakeholder data collection, the redesign team administered online surveys to all stakeholder groups. The redesign team created all surveys in-house and pilot tested them with curriculum committee members. At TAMU, the student classes are named 1VM, 2VM, 3VM, and 4VM to represent each year of the DVM program. For collection of student stakeholder data, the same survey was administered to 1VM and 2VM students to assess their perceived self-confidence in using each NGO. For 3VM and 4VM students, a similar survey was deployed with questions assessing confidence using the NGOs as well as questions regarding specific subject-matter topics in veterinary medicine. Subject-matter topics included those listed in both veterinary and allied health literature. For each subject-matter topic, 3VM and 4VM students were asked (1) to rate their perception of time allocated to these individual subjects, (2) to compare instruction of these subjects in the small-animal and large-animal curricula, and (3) to rate their perceived level of confidence in using each of the subjects as they prepared to enter clinics (3VM survey) or the veterinary workforce (4VM survey). Open-ended questions at the end of each survey allowed constructive feedback and student recommendations for strengthening the current veterinary program. All student surveys were administered as students neared completion of each program year (i.e., surveys were distributed in April as classes ended in May).
The redesign team performed student focus-group interviews as a follow-up to survey distribution to enable in-depth discussion of information received from the surveys. Student participants were selected to represent a diverse population according to GPA, gender, race/ethnicity, and intended clinical track. A typical focus-group interview included three to seven students from one class-year of the program. The sessions were held approximately a month following distribution of the surveys and were facilitated by members of the redesign team. Each 2-hour session was audio-recorded and transcribed for review.
Alumni class members were also included in stakeholder data collection. The redesign team created and deployed surveys to alumni from 1 and 3 years post-graduation. The survey questioned graduates' level of confidence in using the NGOs following graduation as well as the frequency of use for each NGO in their veterinary career. Additional survey questions sought alumni opinions on the most impactful experiences from the curriculum, their recommendations for strengthening the curriculum, and the 10 most frequently used clinical skills or technical procedures performed in their daily practice as veterinary professionals.
For external stakeholder input, data were collected in two formats. Practitioners and employers were asked to rate the frequency of use for each NGO in daily practice, and to rate the proficiency of TAMU graduates in performing the NGOs as employees or coworkers in practice. The redesign team recruited the assistance of the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, who emailed the survey link to all members. Survey respondents included veterinarians practicing in small-animal, exotic, equine, food-animal, or shelter medicine. Following preliminary review of survey data, the team identified a series of discussion questions. Due to difficulty gathering a sufficient number of practitioners to form a functional focus group, veterinarians from various species-specific general practices were selected for one-on-one interviews. Seventeen practitioners were interviewed and interviews lasted between 60 and 120 minutes each. For continuity, a single redesign team member conducted all but one of the practitioner interviews. Audio recordings for each interview were transcribed for review.
The final piece of stakeholder data collected included TAMU faculty input. College administrators selected a group of diverse, highly motivated, and energetic faculty members from all five academic departments to work alongside curriculum committee members in the data analysis process. These 33 faculty members consisted of approximately one third of the teaching faculty within the DVM program and were selected to provide a broad perspective from the college, including those chosen to advocate as agents of change and those chosen to view the process through a critical lens. This group reviewed the stakeholder data, provided insights about the NGOs, provided recommendations for greater NGO implementation within the program, and provided suggestions for addressing any NGO gaps, redundancies, and/or omissions. They were also asked to list their own questions or individual concerns regarding curricular redesign and ideas for the type of specific support that would be necessary to integrate the changes identified through stakeholder data collection. The redesign team compiled and analyzed responses from all 33 faculty members using qualitative methods. The redesign team and curriculum committee received additional faculty input via departmental “town hall” meetings and through a series of “boot camp” workshops for evaluating curricular content. Engaging faculty proved to be an effective means of obtaining buy-in for the proposed curricular changes, thereby reducing the likelihood for opposition at each step. More detailed information on methods for faculty engagement is presented in the second part of this article series.
Response rates for surveys and focus groups/interviews are available in Table 1. Example stakeholder survey questions are available in Appendix 2. For access to completed stakeholder surveys, visit http://vetmed.tamu.edu/dvm/stakeholdersurveys. Stakeholder survey findings and key areas identified for curricular change are listed in Table 2.
|
| Response rates/participation | |||
| Survey respondents | Surveys (%) | Focus groups or interviews | |
| Practitioners | 93 | n/a | 17 |
| Alumni (1 year out) | 37 | 28 | n/a |
| Alumni (3 years out) | 24 | 20 | n/a |
| 1VM | 74 | 56.06 | 8 |
| 2VM | 68 | 51.51 | 14 |
| 3VM | 59 | 44.69 | 22 |
| 4VM | 59 | 44.69 | 15 |
|
| Theme | Details |
| Course integration | Students and faculty reported a lack of integration of material taught in courses—both horizontally (within a given curricular year) and vertically (between curricular years). |
| Teaching methodologies | Stakeholders reported high emphasis on didactic lecturing and minimal opportunities for experiential and active learning. Students perceived a need for increased opportunities to practice the application of knowledge. Faculty reported the need for development opportunities to aid successful implementation of student-centered teaching strategies and additional knowledge regarding the scholarship of teaching and learning. |
| Assessment and feedback | Students reported assessment modalities do not always parallel the method of instruction delivery. Students desired more opportunities for deliberate practice and timely feedback before graded examinations. Faculty reported the desire for a structured peer review of teaching process. |
| Content | Faculty and students reported the need for curricular content review to define core versus elective material. Faculty and students reported the need for overall volume reduction of material taught in some courses to allow time to emphasize common and/or significant medical conditions relevant to Day One practice. |
| Curricular inequality | Students and faculty reported inequality in course content and hours required between clinical tracks. |
| Problem-solving and clinical reasoning skills | Students, faculty, and alumni/practitioners/employers reported the need for additional problem-solving and clinical reasoning opportunities throughout the curriculum. Students reported the need for more learning activities that demonstrate clinical relevance. |
| Professional skills | Employers reported a need for enhanced professional skills (e.g., communication and leadership). Employers reported a need for additional knowledge, understanding, and application of practice management principles. |
| Student wellness | Students reported unprofessional behaviors from peers and faculty. Students reported the need for varied learning modalities in contrast to only didactic lecture format. Students reported that some clinical rotations do not support independent decision making and critical thinking due to time required for clerical and support duties. Students reported the need for wellness and resilience strategies. |
| Technology | Students and faculty reported the need for a consistent online system for course materials across the curriculum and continued instructional technology support during examinations. |
Routine curriculum evaluation is a vital process that ensures continued alignment between veterinary educational programs and the evolving needs of the profession. The prospect of conducting a comprehensive curricular redesign can be daunting for veterinary colleges, given constraints on faculty time, the need for stakeholder input, and the expertise in curriculum design necessary to ensure success. The components of curriculum redesign outlined in this article are intended to benefit educational programs in veterinary medicine, whether used individually or in concert as a stepwise redesign process. A summary of the 8-step redesign process is provided in Table 3.
|
| Step | Process |
| 1 | Forming a curriculum redesign team: This team assists the curriculum committee with the redesign process, serves as a constant source of accurate information for the college, manages and maintains deadlines, and provides faculty support during the redesign initiative. |
| 2 | Creating program learning outcomes: A framework is necessary to begin curricular evaluation and the redesign process. The New Graduate Outcomes (NGOs) document was created by TAMU faculty to define the knowledge, skills, and attributes (KSAs) a successful graduate should possess at the time of graduation4 (http://vetmed.tamu.edu/dvm/ngos). |
| 3 | Mapping the curriculum: The curriculum mapping project provides information regarding the relative contact time currently allocated to teaching and assessing each NGO to enable the identification of gaps, redundancies, and misalignment in the curriculum. |
| 4 | Engaging stakeholders: Internal and external stakeholders are identified and recruited to provide feedback in surveys and focus groups/interviews about the NGOs, the veterinary curriculum, and confidence and competence of TAMU graduates (http://vetmed.tamu.edu/dvm/stakeholdersurveys). |
| 5 | Engaging faculty in stakeholder data analysis: Faculty have the opportunity to review data received through stakeholder data collection and to develop recommendations based on analysis of the information in a series of data analysis workshops. |
| 6 | Developing new graduate outcome rubrics: Program-level rubrics identify developmental expectations for the KSAs students should achieve upon completion of each program year. |
| 7 | Engaging faculty in defining disciplinary content: Faculty work in teams in a series of workshops to define disciplinary content considered core for all students, core for specialty-career tracks, and elective material. This information drives redesign of courses related to content, time allocation, and placement in the program. |
| 8 | Developing an I/R/D matrix: Create a matrix to determine where each NGO will be introduced (I), reinforced (R), and demonstrated (D) within the curricular framework to create an overall picture of the redesigned curriculum. |
Leveraging pedagogical expertise is an important component of program redesign in any educational discipline. This is a growing field of interest in veterinary medicine, with more colleges hiring educational specialists. In the development of the veterinary-specific curricular redesign process, TAMU was fortunate to partner and collaborate with the university's CTE. Other veterinary programs without in-house educational pedagogical expertise are encouraged to reach out to campus organizations that may provide similar support for curricular change. The support TAMU received from the CTE was invaluable during development and implementation of this process.
The redesign process is time intensive. At TAMU, the project lasted nearly 2 years from the creation of program learning outcomes, through the data analysis phase, and finally to the implementation of data-driven revisions in development of the redesigned curriculum. Using the supporting documents provided in this report, including web links to complete documents for the NGOs, stakeholder surveys, and information regarding the curriculum mapping project, the redesign process for other programs could be completed in a shorter time. However, to maintain stamina, energy, and time lines for the redesign initiative, the importance of the redesign team cannot be underestimated.
The redesign team is responsible for maintaining momentum for the process as well as facilitating faculty engagement outside of the curriculum committee. At TAMU, the associate dean appointed four faculty members to the redesign team with variable FTE hours for the initiative. Funding was also made available for a graduate assistant who transcribed all student focus groups and practitioner interviews and took on other time-consuming responsibilities associated with data compilation. This made it possible for the redesign team to focus on presentation of data to the curriculum committee and development of opportunities for faculty engagement. Once designated, the redesign team assisted the curriculum committee with the redesign process, served as a constant source of accurate information for the college, managed and helped maintain deadlines, and provided invaluable faculty support during the redesign initiative. Without a dedicated team, a redesign process risks losing momentum and failing to keep faculty engaged, both of which can be problematic during the implementation phases of redesign.
The development of program learning outcomes was a critical part of TAMU's redesign effort and one of the most time-intensive and challenging aspects. Without a comprehensive, universal framework of learning outcomes defined by veterinary governing bodies, the redesign team and curriculum committee created the NGOs using a variety of pre-existing frameworks. For example, the University of Calgary's Faculty of Veterinary Medicine has a unique framework that incorporates CanMEDS into the veterinary education program. Originally designed by the Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada, CanMEDS categorizes the seven roles physicians must master to become successful medical professionals.20 These roles, including medical expert, communicator, collaborator, leader, health advocate, scholar, and professional, are similar to the competencies outlined by both the AVMA and NAVMEC, although designed for graduates in human medicine. Another framework recently developed in veterinary medicine is the Veterinary Professional framework (VetPro). Created by Harold Bok and colleagues in the Netherlands,21 this framework highlights seven competency domains as the foundation for veterinary medical education: veterinary expertise, health and welfare, scholarship, communication, personal development, collaboration, and entrepreneurship. Despite the comprehensive nature of these published educational frameworks in veterinary medicine, they have yet to receive widespread adoption.22
The objective in publishing the TAMU NGOs is to share a new educational framework with the veterinary education community that is easily amendable in curriculum planning. As an example, the performance criteria listed for each outcome can be used in the design of educational experiences to ensure student competency for each outcome. Performance criteria were created with both the changing needs of the veterinary profession and variable independent users in mind. The team intentionally wrote the criteria to be specific but not prescriptive, allowing educators to use creative license in developing exercises to promote student achievement for each outcome. The team also recognizes that different institutions within veterinary medicine have unique areas of emphasis; therefore, the NGOs provide a curricular framework for all veterinary educational programs. With built-in inherent flexibility, the NGOs can easily be customized to fit the context of each individual program. Programs interested in a complete copy of the NGO document may use the following link: http://vetmed.tamu.edu/dvm/ngos.
Curriculum mapping is also an important component in the evaluation of the current curriculum and a method of establishing a baseline for the redesign effort. The custom-designed web-based program that was developed in-house supports the needs of the TAMU program. However, there are many commercial software programs available that provide curriculum-mapping capabilities (e.g., E*Value, One45, Curriculum 21). Regardless of the mapping software used, a curriculum framework must be in place to successfully map curricular content back to program outcomes. The purposes of curriculum mapping include evaluation of the current curriculum and identification of gaps and redundancies across the program. The curriculum map serves as a critical tool for faculty teaching in veterinary education by providing a database of content searchable by topic, organ system, instructional modality, learning outcome, assessment method, and instructor. For faculty creating new educational experiences or updating previously developed course materials, information contained in the map becomes especially valuable.
The next step in the redesign process at TAMU involves developing an action report that summarizes findings from stakeholder data collection and proposes the newly redesigned curriculum. The redesign team and curriculum committee have developed competency rubrics that demonstrate the expected level of student mastery for each NGO upon completion of each program year. Serving as benchmarks for each year of the program, the NGO rubrics define the developmental expectations for each outcome, provide a reliable means for formative and summative assessment, and facilitate redesign of the curriculum. Findings from stakeholder data collection will be integrated and implemented based on faculty input and guidance from the curriculum committee. The redesign team will continue to support faculty and the curriculum committee through the implementation phases of the redesign process. In the second part of this article series, the process for development of the NGO rubrics and methods for engaging faculty and maintaining forward momentum throughout the redesign initiative will be described.
| 1. | Fowler D, Lazo M, Turner J, et al. Facilitating program, faculty, and student transformation: a framework for curriculum redesign. J Transform Learn [Internet]. 2015;3(1):59–73. Available from: https://jotl.uco.edu/index.php/jotl/article/view/54/51 Google Scholar |
| 2. | Wolf P. A model for facilitating curriculum development in higher education: a faculty-driven, data-informed, and educational developer–supported approach. New Dir Teach Learn. 2007;2007(112):15–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.294 Google Scholar |
| 3. | Diamond RM. Designing and assessing courses and curricula: a practical guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011 Google Scholar |
| 4. | Coe JB, Darisi T, Satchell T, et al. Using focus groups to engage veterinary students in course redesign and development. J Vet Med Educ. 2012;39(1):30–8. Medline:22430079 http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0811.084R Link, Google Scholar |
| 5. | Lloyd JW, Walsh DA. Template for a recommended curriculum in “Veterinary Professional Development and Career Success”. J Vet Med Educ. 2002;29(2):84–93. Medline:12143025 http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.29.2.84 Link, Google Scholar |
| 6. | Eyre P. Engineering veterinary education. J Vet Med Educ. 2002;29(4):195–200. Medline:26359770 http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.29.4.195 Link, Google Scholar |
| 7. | Bell CE. Faculty development in veterinary education: are we doing enough (or publishing enough about it), and do we value it? J Vet Med Educ. 2013;40(2):96–101. Medline:23709106 http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0113-022R Link, Google Scholar |
| 8. | Fowler D, Poling N, Anthony W, et al. Data-driven curriculum redesign in civil engineering. 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE); 2014 Oct 22–25; Madrid, Spain Google Scholar |
| 9. | Fowler D, Macik M, Sandoval C, et al. Program (re)design model: a sustainable, system-level approach to faculty development. J Fac Dev. 2016;3:17–25 Google Scholar |
| 10. | Giersch S, McMartin F, Nilsen E, et al. Supporting change in entrepreneurship education: implementing a program grounded in literature on faculty development and change. J Eng Entrep. 2015;6(2):58–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.7814/jeenv6n2p4 Google Scholar |
| 11. | Giersch S, McMartin F, Nilsen E, et al. Supporting change in entrepreneurship education: implementing a program grounded in literature on faculty development and change. J Eng Entrep. 2015;6(2):58–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.7814/jeenv6n2p4 Google Scholar |
| 12. | Batalden P, Leach D, Swing S, et al. General competencies and accreditation in graduate medical education. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21(5):103–11. Medline:12224871 http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.21.5.103 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 13. | Chapman DM, Hayden S, Sanders AB, et al. Integrating the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Core competencies into the model of the clinical practice of emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43(6):756–69. Medline:15159710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2003.12.022 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 14. | American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). Accreditation policies and procedures of the AVMA Council on Education (COE) [Internet]. Schaumburg, IL: AVMA; 2016 [cited 2016 Dec 24]. Available from: https://www.avma.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/Education/Accreditation/Colleges/Pages/coe-pp.aspx Google Scholar |
| 15. | North American Veterinary Medical Education Consortium (NAVMEC). Roadmap for veterinary medical education in the 21st century: responsive, collaborative, flexible [Internet]. Washington, DC: NAVMEC; 2011 [cited 2016 Dec 24]. Available from: http://www.aavmc.org/data/files/navmec/navmec_roadmapreport_web_booklet.pdf Google Scholar |
| 16. | Doucet MY, Vrins A. The importance of knowledge, skills, and attitude attributes for veterinarians in clinical and non-clinical fields of practice: a survey of licensed veterinarians in Quebec, Canada. J Vet Med Educ. 2009;36(3):331–42. Medline:19861721 http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme/014 Link, Google Scholar |
| 17. | Lloyd JW. Developing a curriculum to improve the skills, knowledge, aptitudes, and attitudes of veterinary students. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2002;220(7):976–7. Medline:12420771 http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2002.220.976 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 18. | Rogers KS, Green EM, Chaney KP, et al. Preparing veterinary students for entry-level practice by identifying new graduate outcomes. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2016;248(7):751–3. Medline:27003011 http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.248.7.751 Medline, Google Scholar |
| 19. | Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman; 2001 Google Scholar |
| 20. | Frank JR, Snell L. The draft CanMEDS 2015 physician competency framework-series 1 [Internet]. Ottawa, ON: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2014 [cited 2016 Dec 24]. Available from: http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/common/documents/canmeds/framework/framework_series_1_e.pdf Google Scholar |
| 21. | Bok HG, Jaarsma DA, Teunissen PW, et al. Development and validation of a competency framework for veterinarians. J Vet Med Educ. 2011;38(3):262–9. Medline:22023978 http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.38.3.262 Link, Google Scholar |
| 22. | Hodgson JL, Pelzer JM, Inzana KD. Beyond NAVMEC: competency-based veterinary education and assessment of the professional competencies. J Vet Med Educ. 2013;40(2):102–18. Medline:23709107 http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.1012-092R Link, Google Scholar |
| NGO 1: | Comprehensive patient diagnosis (problem solving), appropriate use of clinical laboratory testing, and record management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 2: | Comprehensive treatment planning, including patient referral when indicated | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 3: | Anesthesia and pain management, patient welfare | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 4: | Basic surgery skills, experience, and case management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 5: | Basic medicine skills, experience, and case management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 6: | Emergency and intensive-care case management | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 7: | Health promotion, disease prevention/biosecurity, zoonosis, and food safety | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 8: | Client communications and ethical conduct | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 9: | Critical analysis of new information and research findings relevant to veterinary medicine | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 10: | Team collaboration, leadership, and practice management
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 11: | Multicultural awareness and personal wellness | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 12: | Legal and regulatory compliance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NGO 13: | Animal welfare | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Knowledge rating: The following lists a broad range of subjects found within the veterinary curriculum. Please consider your use of these subjects in your career and comment on your educational preparedness as a veterinarian following graduation from TAMU.
|
| Rate frequency of use in your career | Rate your educational preparedness as a DVM following graduation | ||||||||
| Daily | Weekly | Monthly | Rarely | N/A | Subject areas | Excellent | Satisfactory | Marginal | Poor |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Behavioral Medicine | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Clinical Nutrition | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Clinical Pathology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Cytology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Necropsy | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Parasitology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Clinical Toxicology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Anesthesiology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Soft Tissue Surgery | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Orthopedic Surgery | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Diagnostic Imaging/Radiology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Diagnostic Imaging/Ultrasound | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Basic Technical Skills | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Cardiology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Dermatology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Neurology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Dentistry | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Emergency Medicine | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Ophthalmology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Oncology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Theriogenology | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Rehabilitation/Sports Medicine | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Exotics/Zoo Medicine | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Alternative Therapies | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Preventive Medicine | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Lameness | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Internal Medicine | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Emergency Response | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Shelter Medicine | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| Q1. | As a veterinarian in the workforce, you now recognize the skills and knowledge necessary to practice high-quality veterinary medicine. Do you wish the 4-year curriculum had provided greater emphasis or greater preparation for you in any particular areas? | ||||
| Q2. | During the 4-year curriculum, which class or classes do you feel were most impactful to your training as a veterinarian? Please explain why. | ||||
| Q3. | Please list 10 clinical skills, technical procedures, and/or diagnostic tools that are used most frequently in your veterinary career. | ||||
| Q4. | Overall, do you feel TAMU successfully prepared you to enter the veterinary workforce after graduation? Why or why not? | ||||
| Q5. | Please give your suggestion(s) for improving the curriculum. | ||||
Rating of new graduate outcomes: The following outcomes have been developed as a list of professional skills and abilities TAMU graduates are expected to possess. Please consider use of these outcomes in everyday practice and rate the proficiency of TAMU graduates working as employees in your practice.
|
| Rate frequency of use in your practice | Rate proficiency of New TAMU Graduate | |||||||||
| Daily | Weekly | Monthly | Rarely | N/A | Outcomes | Excellent | Satis-factory | Needs improvement | Non-existent | Cannot assess |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Collect case information (e.g., signalment, history) | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Perform and interpret complete physical exam | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Formulate and rank a list of differential diagnoses | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Identify the appropriate diagnostic tests to perform for patient evaluation | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Collect high-quality samples for diagnostic testing | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Analyze and interpret laboratory data and test results | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Demonstrate clinical reasoning to make a definitive diagnosis | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Manage medical records | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Create a therapeutic plan | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Identify professional strengths and weaknesses | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Consult colleagues or refer cases when indicated | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Create an appropriate sedation or anesthetic plan | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Perform and monitor basic anesthesia | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Identify and control pain in patients | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Demonstrate the core surgical skills required for entry-level surgical procedures | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Create a surgical treatment plan | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Provide appropriate post-operative care for patients | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Perform basic medicine procedures | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | Create short- and long-term treatment plans for patients | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| Q1. | Please list 10 clinical skills, technical procedures, and/or diagnostic tools that are used most frequently in your veterinary career. | ||||
| Q2. | Please list additional important concepts or skills not included above that you feel are important for a new graduate. | ||||
