Anatomy Faculty Views and Opinions about Curricular Reform at Allopathic Medical Schools in the United States

Abstract

IntroductionMedical education in the United States has changed dramatically in the last few decades. Medical schools have moved away from a traditional, didactic, and discipline‐based curriculum, to a more integrative, active, and student‐centered curriculum. While much research has documented the specific changes in medical curriculum, few have researched the perceptions towards these changes.AimThis study examines specific changes that have occurred in anatomical science courses at allopathic medical schools in the United States due to curricular reform and how faculty have reacted to those changes.MethodologyA survey was distributed to anatomical science faculty who teach gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, and/or neuroanatomy at allopathic medical schools in the United States. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative questions related to the change in content coverage, the change in lecture and lab experience, and faculty perceptions of those changes.ResultsFindings from the survey showed that most anatomical science courses are currently taught in an integrated manner with various active learning pedagogical techniques used in the classrooms. The survey also found that most of the anatomical science courses had their contact hours reduced, leaving much less time for the faculty to teach their students the relevant information. Open‐ended survey responses showed that faculty believed the integration of basic and clinical science information was helpful for their students. However, using Mann‐Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests relating faculty perceptions on a Likert Scale to changes in the anatomical science medical curriculum, it was found that faculty whose medical school had undergone recent curricular reform had more negative perceptions about their students receiving adequate instruction in anatomical science material.Discussion and ConclusionThese data provided valuable, though contrasting, information about medical curricular changes and faculty perspectives about those changes. While some faculty had positive things to say about the curricular changes, others believed it was not beneficial to their students. These more negative views should not go unnoticed by administration designing the medical curriculum, and more heed should be taken to listening to all the stakeholders in a medical curriculum.