Outcome-based self-assessment on a team-teaching subject in the medical school

Anatomy and Cell Biology

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 259-266

  Yoon, Sang Pil ^a   Cho, Sa Sun ^a  

^a Jeju National University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Assessment; Integrated curriculum; Outcome; Team teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 84952921230     PISSN: 20933665     EISSN: 20933673     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5115/acb.2014.47.4.259     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Patel KM, Moxham BJ. Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clin Anat 2006;19:132-41.
2. Rizzolo LJ, Rando WC, O'Brien MK, Haims AH, Abrahams JJ, Stewart WB. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 2010;3:109-20.
3. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 2010;3:83-93.
4. Klement BJ, Paulsen DF, Wineski LE. Anatomy as the backbone of an integrated first year medical curriculum: design and implementation. Anat Sci Educ 2011;4:157-69.
5. Drake RL, Lowrie DJ Jr, Prewitt CM. Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec 2002;269:118-22.
6. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ 2009;2:253-9.
7. Bergman EM, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. Why don't they know enough about anatomy? A narrative review. Med Teach 2011;33:403-9.
8. Oh SA, Chung EK, Rhee JA, Baik YH. An evaluation of integrated curriculum based on students' perspective. Korean J Med Educ 2007;19:305-11.
9. Cook L, Friend M. Co-teaching: guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus Except Child 1995;28:1-16.
10. Hwang YI. Reasonable hours of lecture and dissection for anatomy education in medical school. In: 60th Congress of Korean Association of Anatomists; 2010 Oct 20-23; Jeju, Korea. p. S1-1: 22.
11. Kulik JA, McKeachie WJ. The evaluation of teachers in higher education. Rev Res Educ 1975;3:210-40.
12. Kaplan RM, Saccuzzo DP. Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. 6th ed. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.; 2004.
13. Lee YM, So YH, Ahn DS, Rhee KJ, Im H. Psychometric analysis of comprehensive basic medical sciences examination. Korean J Med Educ 2002;14:301-6.
14. Park JC, Kim KS. A comparison between discrimination indices and item-response theory using the Rasch Model in a clinical course written examination of a medical school. Korean J Med Educ 2012;24:15-21.
15. Korean Association of Anatomists. Human anatomy. 2nd ed. Seoul: Korea Medical Book Publisher; 2005.
16. Pabst R. Anatomy curriculum for medical students: what can be learned for future curricula from evaluations and questionnaires completed by students, anatomists and clinicians in different countries? Ann Anat 2009;191:541-6.
17. Welch M, Brownell K, Sheridan SM. What's the score and game plan on teaming in schools? A review of the literature on team teaching and school-based problem-solving teams. Remedial Spec Educ 1999;20:36-49.
18. Murawski WW, Swanson HL. A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: where are the data? Remedial Spec Educ 2001;22:258-67.
19. Jelsing EJ, Lachman N, O'Neil AE, Pawlina W. Can a flexible medical curriculum promote student learning and satisfaction? Ann Acad Med Singapore 2007;36:713-8.
20. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. A survey of student perceptions of team-based learning in anatomy curriculum: favorable views unrelated to grades. Anat Sci Educ 2009;2:150-5.
21. Reilly FD. Outcomes from building system courseware for teaching and testing in a discipline-based human structure curriculum. Anat Sci Educ 2011;4:190-4.
22. Chariker JH, Naaz F, Pani JR. Item difficulty in the evaluation of computer-based instruction: an example from neuroanatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2012;5:63-75.
23. Gruppen LD. Outcome-based medical education: implications, opportunities, and challenges. Korean J Med Educ 2012;24:281-5.