ABSTRACT

The purpose of this dissertation was to describe, analyze, and evaluate three methods that could be of use to medical schools developing core curricula. I also discussed five problems that present themselves when studying core curricula: the number of objectives in a core, prioritization of objectives, operational definitions, involvement of stakeholders, and underlying beliefs. The dissertation was based on three empirical studies and a larger literature study.

In conclusion, I found that the Delphi-method, learning needs assessment by self-evaluation, and the focus group method could contribute substantially and differently to core curriculum design. Each method was easy to use concerning resources and techniques. I also concluded that none of the problems raised could be answered unequivocally or `technically.' Grounded in my empirical results, literature, and discussion I nevertheless recommend:

to limit the number of objectives in a curriculum,

to prioritize objectives in an undergraduate medical curriculum with regard to application in practice, emphasis on intellectual skills, and based on values and learning theories,

to include complex, `imprecise,' and `difficult to define' outcomes, if they are important,

to use a design down, or collaborative approach, or the like, where teachers specify objectives,

to involve local stakeholders in curriculum design,

to involve experts that can contribute significantly to a core curriculum,

to discuss foundations and rationales of curriculum theories before major curriculum design processes or reforms are commenced. The rationale impact the choices made concerning objectives, curriculum, and implementation, and it should be explicit.