The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lessons learned about integrating a medical school curriculum: perceptions of students, faculty and curriculum leaders
Abstract
Objective Recent educational reform in US medical schools has created integrated curricular structures. This study investigated how stakeholders in a newly integrated curriculum – students, course directors and curriculum leaders – define integration and perceive its successes and challenges during its first year. Methods We conducted interviews with curriculum reform leaders, course directors and first year medical students. Interview transcripts were analysed for themes, which were compared within and across stakeholder groups. Results Three curriculum leaders, four Year 1 course directors and six Year 1 medical students were interviewed. Fifteen students participated in a group interview. Four major themes emerged: interdisciplinary teaching; interdisciplinary faculty collaboration; building curricular links, and sequencing and framing curricular content. Cross‐group analysis revealed participant agreement that an integrated curriculum required interdisciplinary teaching, clinical application and careful oversight. Differences among groups were also identified. Faculty (course directors and curriculum leaders) discussed faculty collaboration and the challenges of faculty buy‐in and course implementation. Students highlighted the impact of integration on their learning and the challenges of sequencing and scaffolding content. Both students and course directors focused on course monitoring and conceptual links for student learning. Conclusions Integrating a curriculum is a complex process. It is differentially understood and experienced by students and faculty, and can refer to instructional method, content, faculty work or synthesis of knowledge in the minds of learners. It can occur at different rates and some subjects are integrated more easily than others. We point to some specific considerations as medical schools embark on curriculum reform.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787
American Medical Education 100 Years after the Flexner Report
Cooke, M., Irby, D. M., Sullivan, W., & Ludmerer, K. M. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra055445 · Cited by 883
Self-citationWhat clinical teachers in medicine need to know.
Irby, D. M. (1994) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199405000-00003 · Cited by 434
Self-citation
Cited by
National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education
McBride, J. M., & Drake, R. L. (2018) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1760 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- Muller, J. H., Jain, S., Loeser, H., & Irby, D. M.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-07-17
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 778-785
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2104664608
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lessons learned about integrating a medical school curriculum: perceptions of students, faculty and curriculum leaders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03110.x
- The paper
- Muller, J. H., Jain, S., Loeser, H., & Irby, D. M. (2008). Lessons learned about integrating a medical school curriculum: perceptions of students, faculty and curriculum leaders. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03110.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.