Curricular Revision and Reform: The Process, What Was Important, and Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning in 2005, the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program at the University of California underwent major curricular review and reform. To provide information for others that follow, we have documented our process and commented on factors that were critical to success, as well as factors we found surprising, difficult, or problematic. The review and reform were initiated by the Executive Committee, who led the process and commissioned the committees. The planning stage took 6 years and involved four faculty committees, while the implementation stage took 5 years and was led by the Curriculum Committee. We are now in year 2 of the institutionalizing stage and no longer refer to our reform as the "new curriculum." The change was driven by a desire to improve the curriculum and the learning environment of the students by aligning the delivery of information with current teaching methodologies and implementing adult learning strategies. We moved from a department- and discipline-based curriculum to a school-wide integrated block curriculum that emphasized student-centered, inquiry-based learning. A limit was placed on in-class time to allow students to apply classroom knowledge by solving problems and cases. We found the journey long and arduous, requiring tremendous commitment and effort. In the change process, we learned the importance of adequate planning, leadership, communication, and a reward structure for those doing the "heavy lifting." Specific to our curricular design, we learned the importance of the block leader role, of setting clear expectations for students, and of partnering with students on the journey.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".