1. Workshop Curricula review Ghent University Workshop Tempus Curricula Review 19-21 October 2005

2. Workshop Curricula review 2005 Conference themes Themes include: A: Curriculum and learning outcomes; B: Teaching and learning; C: Assessment; D: Educational management; E: Undergraduate/basic medical education; F: Postgraduate/specialist training/continuing professional development; G: Multiprofessional education. AMEE A worldwide association for all interested in medical and health care professions education Amsterdam RAI 30 august – 2 september 2005

3. Workshop Curricula review Development and validation of a prospective, random sample method for measuring study-time and learning context in Medical Education Design 1 3 Relevance Reliability 2 Conclusion 4 J Van der Veken jos.vanderveken@ugent Jos Van der Veken, MD, Research Associate, Directorate Educational Affairs, Centre Educational Quality Assurance AMEE 2005 Amsterdam

4. Workshop Curricula review Monitoring : study guide realistic ? Evaluation new medical curriculum Impact of educational Innovations Impact of BaMa reform Monitoring ECTS-contract Why should we ? How should we ? Prospective Stratified random samples of students and weeks AMEE 2005 Amsterdam

5. Workshop Curricula review Bologna Action Lines 1-5 1: System of easily readable & comparable degrees 2: System based on two cycles (now 3) 3: Establishment of a system of credits 4: Promotion of mobility 5: Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance Ad 3 ECTS – method of describing time spent on a topic – so can compare curricula

6. Workshop Curricula review Development and validation of a prospective, random sample method for measuring study-time and learning context in Medical Education Design 1 3 Relevance Reliability 2 Conclusion 4 J Van der Veken jos.vanderveken@ugent AMEE 2005 Amsterdam Jos Van der Veken, MD, Research Associate, Directorate Educational Affairs, Centre Educational Quality Assurance

7. Workshop Curricula review DESIGN 4WS procedure  All students of a study year  10 research groups : at random Proportional for gender / educational group  Each research group participates 4 weeks equally divided over academic year 2 ‘normal lesson’ - weeks 1 week : preparation of exams – 1 ‘exam’-week  Recall in case of non-response (proposing an alternative week) AMEE 2005 Amsterdam

8. Workshop Curricula review Planned acitivWhoWhereToolStudy-activtySubject The form

9. Workshop Curricula review Development and validation of a prospective, random sample method for measuring study-time and learning context in Medical Education Design 1 3 Relevance Reliability 2 Conclusion 4 J Van der Veken jos.vanderveken@ugent AMEE 2005 Amsterdam Jos Van der Veken, MD, Research Associate, Directorate Educational Affairs, Centre Educational Quality Assurance

10. Workshop Curricula review no difference between two registration periods of same curriculum year MD1 1999-20002000-20012001-20022002-2003 MD1 MD2 MD3 MD 2 year 1 year 2 year 3 6 course units unchanged 63% of estimated study time 6 course units unchanged 65% of estimated study time 6 course units unchanged 67% of estimated study time Reliability AMEE 2005 Amsterdam

11. Workshop Curricula review year 1year 2year 3 11 h 7 % 0.6% 33 h 7 % 26 h 9 % 0.9% 3.3% Participation 1 : 95% Participation 2 : 89% Participation 1 : 80% Participation 2 : 76% Participation 1 : 64% Participation 2 : 60% 200 400 600 800 h coh1 coh2 Year-totals and course unit-totals = nearly equal

12. Workshop Curricula review Development and validation of a prospective, random sample method for measuring study-time and learning context in Medical Education Design 1 3 Relevance Reliability 2 Conclusion 4 J Van der Veken jos.vanderveken@ugent AMEE 2005 Amsterdam Jos Van der Veken, MD, Research Associate, Directorate Educational Affairs, Centre Educational Quality Assurance

13. Workshop Curricula review Number of students week MD year 2 – 2001-2002 participation selected students AMEE 2005 Amsterdam example 1

14. Workshop Curricula review Number of hours / week weeknumber planned self-study sem 1 sem 2 example 2 MD year 2 – 2001-2002 timing study-activities

15. Workshop Curricula review Participation Planned activities SelfstudyTotal Study time Study guide Difference Course unit 177229306300+ 2 % Course unit 266105171150+ 14 % Course unit 391209299320- 7 % Course unit 4245982105- 22 % Course unit 59586790- 26 % Course unit 620648475+ 12 % Course unit 721133154150+ 3 % Course unit 857313370210+ 76 % Course unit 968248316300+ 5 % Non specified134- Total433142018531700+ 9 % Relevance Report example 3 example 3

16. Workshop Curricula review course unit 1 AMEE 2005 Amsterdam example 4

17. Workshop Curricula review MD year 2 – 2001-2002 Learning activities % of total of hours of selfstudy example 5

18. Workshop Curricula review processing Preparation evaluation preparation tasks unit 1 unit 2 unit 3 unit 4 unit 5 unit 6 unit 7 unit 8 % of total of hours of selfstudy excl. examination period example 6

19. Workshop Curricula review year 1 Evolution of learning tools year 2 year 3year 4 42 h 45 h27 h % of total of hours of selfstudy 38 h example 7

20. Workshop Curricula review Evolution of study place 98 % 2%1% Year 1 98 % 1%2% 94 % 0,3% 5% Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 17 h20 h 17 h4 h % of total of hours of selfstudy example 8

21. Workshop Curricula review % of total of hours of selfstudy Educational Sciences 1 Clinical psychology 3 Medicine Learning partners in different curricula Educational Sciences 3 example 9

22. Workshop Curricula review Development and validation of a prospective, random sample method for measuring study-time and learning context in Medical Education Design 1 3 Relevance Reliability 2 Conclusion 4 J Van der Veken jos.vanderveken@ugent AMEE 2005 Amsterdam Jos Van der Veken, MD, Research Associate, Directorate Educational Affairs, Centre Educational Quality Assurance

23. Workshop Curricula review Conclusion strong design feasible for students high participation stable measurements reliable results Huge quantity of information about study time and learning context Ideal instrument for follow-up educational interventions and monitoring study process in higher education (and why not in secondary schools ?) AMEE 2005 Amsterdam