Evaluating a novel intervention in undergraduate medicine: an MBBS Curriculum Map.

BACKGROUND: Following student feedback, a Curriculum Map (CM) was commissioned in 2018 at UCL Medical School (UCLMS). After exploring key requirements of a CM, the second phase focused on building a prototype before its launch. This study evaluates this novel pedagogical intervention following its implementation, from the perspective of its primary users, UCL medical students. METHODS: This multi-method study was conducted two months after the CM's launch in 2019. Quantitative and qualitative data was gathered via a survey and focus groups across four domains: usefulness, satisfaction, appearance, and content. Reflective Thematic Analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data to build themes. RESULTS: One hundred ninety five participants (195/1347, 14%) responded to the survey and two focus groups were held. Higher rates of satisfaction were seen among later years compared to early years students. Five key themes emerged on the CM as a: UCLMS textbook; learning aid for assessments; tool for capturing scientific content; modern learning technology and tool for 'levelling the playing field'. Key findings suggest that while students welcomed a centralised resource to create transparency, there were clear differences between early and later years students, with the former preferring a more prescriptive approach. Learning was assessment-driven across all years and students highlighted their desire for greater clarity on the importance of curricular content for summative assessments. CONCLUSION: A CM provides a benchmark for medical educators on the undergraduate curriculum, which must be balanced with its limitations; a CM cannot provide an exhaustive syllabus and needs to be supplemented with self-directed learning and clinical preparation for practice.

Levelling the playing field: students' motivations to contribute to an amnesty of assessment materials.

BACKGROUND: 'Exam recall' is a recognised phenomenon whereby students recall and record questions after leaving the examination hall. This poses two main problems. First, as these questions are only available to peers of the students who recall the questions, these individuals have an unfair advantage. Secondly, the distribution of these recalled questions poses a threat to the validity and defensibility of assessments. To address the first of these problems, we developed an amnesty enabling students to submit assessment material to an on-line site. This study sought to explore which factors influence students' contributions to an amnesty of assessment material. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus groups. We used convenience sampling and recruited participants from all years of our undergraduate medical programme. The focus groups were facilitated by a medical student peer to reduce the power imbalance and encourage participants to discuss candidly. The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently analysed all transcripts using thematic analysis and the research team met regularly to discuss emergent findings. Nvivo was used to assist with thematic analysis of the transcripts. RESULTS: Twenty-six individuals participated in six focus groups. Six themes were identified through the analysis, which were categorised into motivating factors and de-motivating factors. Motivating factors were a perception that this would overcome inequity, a fear of repercussions, and the perceived usefulness of resources. Factors that prevented students contributing were a culture of competition, a lack of incentives, and mistrust of the medical school. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of an amnesty was acceptable to students and they were motivated to contribute materials. The competitive nature of medical careers and the stakes of summative assessments meant that students felt that some peers might still not contribute their materials. Students felt that the school were listening to their concerns and this led to a better dialogue between students and faculty.