Methods Used to Assess Student Performance and Course Outcomes at the National Center of Excellence in Dairy Production Medicine Education for Veterinarians.

Between 2012 and 2014, three cohorts of senior veterinary students participated in an 8-week dairy production medicine course created by the National Center of Excellence in Dairy Production Medicine Education for Veterinarians. One goal of this course is to better prepare veterinary students to serve the increasingly complex needs of the dairy industry. In this article, we describe the assessment methods and student performance outcomes of those first three cohorts. A combination of assessment methods was used, including pre- and post-testing; instructor observations and scores on individual and group projects, including a final integrative project; and peer evaluation. Student feedback, collected via anonymous survey, provided insight into students' perceptions about the course and their learning. Performance and feedback suggest that the course was successful in preparing students for careers using skills in dairy production medicine. Pre- and post-testing was conducted for most topic modules in the course. The mean (median) pre- and post-test scores were 47% (50% ) and 83% (88%), respectively. The mean improvement in score was significant (p < .002) for all modules and cohorts. Students indicated a moderate or high degree of confidence in performing dairy production medicine skills after each module. Of students in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively, 55%, 75%, and 82% felt they could provide dairy production medicine services (e.g., records analysis, problem investigation, protocol and standard operating procedure design) either alone or with some mentoring, immediately after graduation. In addition, assessment results and student feedback enabled timely course modifications during these first three cohorts.

Outcomes assessment of case-based writing exercises in a veterinary clinical pathology course.

Our second-year core clinical pathology course uses free-response case-based learning exercises in an otherwise traditional lecture or laboratory course format to augment the development of skills in application of knowledge and critical thinking and clinical reasoning. We previously reported increased learner confidence accompanied by perceived improvements in understanding and ability to apply information, along with enhanced feelings of preparedness for examinations that students attributed to the case-based exercises. The current study prospectively follows a cohort of students to determine the ability of traditional multiple-choice versus free-response case-based assessments to predict future academic performance and to determine if the perceived value of the case-based exercises persists through the curriculum. Our data show that after holding multiple-choice scores constant, better performance on case-based free-response exercises led to higher GPA and better class rank in the second and third years and better class rank in the fourth year. Students in clinical rotations reported that the case-based approach was superior to traditional lecture or multiple-choice exam format for learning clinical reasoning, retaining factual information, organizing information, communicating medical information clearly to colleagues in clinical situations, and preparing high quality medical records. In summary, this longitudinal study shows that case-based free-response writing assignments are efficacious above and beyond standard measures in determining students' GPAs and class rank and in students' acquisition of knowledge, skills, and clinical reasoning. Students value these assignments and overwhelmingly find them an efficient use of their time, and these opinions are maintained even two years following the course.

The Tyranny of Content: "Content Coverage" as a Barrier to Evidence-Based Teaching Approaches and Ways to Overcome It.

Instructors have inherited a model for conscientious instruction that suggests they must cover all the material outlined in their syllabus, and yet this model frequently diverts time away from allowing students to engage meaningfully with the content during class. We outline the historical forces that may have conditioned this teacher-centered model as well as the disciplinary pressures that inadvertently reward it. As a way to guide course revision and move to a learner-centered teaching approach, we propose three evidence-based strategies that instructors can adopt: 1) identify the core concepts and competencies for your course; 2) create an organizing framework for the core concepts and competencies; and 3) teach students how to learn in your discipline. We further outline examples of actions that instructors can incorporate to implement each of these strategies. We propose that moving from a content-coverage approach to these learner-centered strategies will help students better learn and retain information and apply it to new situations.