Medical Science Educator

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 51–55 | Cite as

The Impact of Communication Strategies on Faculty Members’ Readiness for Curricular Change

  • M. QuearryEmail author
  • G. Bonaminio
  • K. Istas
  • A. Paolo
  • A. Walling
Short Communication


Curricular change is the “new normal” for medical schools. Assessing faculty readiness, perceptions about the necessity and urgency of change, and confidence in the capacity of the organization to successfully implement the process, have been identified as essential to managing the curricular change process. We used The Medical School’s Organizational Readiness for Curriculum Change Questionnaire (MORC) to assess and monitor faculty readiness for change. This 53-item survey uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess 3 factors. This project focused on the seven-item Communication subscale in order to guide the strategy for informing and involving faculty in the curricular change process. The MORC was distributed electronically to full-time faculty in December 2014 (pre-change), August 2016 (mid-change), and September 2017 (post-change). Respondents reported significantly increasing support and positive attitudes about curricular change, supporting the hypothesis that the communication strategies informed by MORC findings had a positive impact on faculty members’ perceptions of the process. As the leading faculty concerns reported in the MORC shifted from the merits of change to practical concerns about implementation, we adapted communications to address their priorities. The MORC proved useful in capturing quantitative data on faculty perceptions of curricular change but its value was limited by low response rates and unrepresentative samples. Scientists, full professors and tenure track faculty members were overrepresented in survey respondents. Survey lengths were identified as limiting participation. Our experience supports the development of a shorter version of MORC to retain validity and reliability while potentially increasing response rate.


Curriculum change Organizational change Change management Communication strategies Faculty engagement 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The project was granted exemption status by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Kansas Medical Center on November 20, 2014.

Informed Consent

The invitation email to faculty members included details about the purpose of the project and information about data collection, analysis and use. In completing and submitting the questionnaire, the participant acknowledged consent.


  1. 1.
    Frenk J, Chen I, Butta ZA, et al. Health professionals for a new century; transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376:1923–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jippes M, Driessen EW, Broers NJ, Majoor GD, Gijselaers WH, van der Vleuten CPM. A medical school’s organizational readiness for curriculum change (MORC): development and validation of a questionnaire. Acad Med. 2013;88:1346–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Skochelak SE, Stack SJ. Creating the medical schools of the future. Acad Med. 2017;92:16–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skochelak SE. A decade of reports calling for change in medical education: what do they say? Acad Med. 2010;85:S26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Institute of Medicine Improving medical education. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine; 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kotter JP. Leading change. Boston mass: Harvard Business School Press. 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mejicano GC, Bumsted TN. Describing the journey and lessons learned implementing a competency-based, time-variable undergraduate medical education curriculum. Acad Med. 2018;93:S42–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loeser H, O’Sullivan P, Irby DM. Leadership lessons for curricular change at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2007;83:324–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mennin S, Kalishman S, editors. Issues and strategies for reform in medical education: lessons for eight medical schools. Acad Med. 1998;7:73.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindberg MA. The process of change: stories of the journey. Acad Med. 1998;73:S4–10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Irby DM. University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine. In: Whitcomb M, editor. The education of medical students: ten stories of curricular change. New York, NY: Millbank Memorial Fund; 2000. p. 45–70.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bland CJ, Starnaman S, Hembroff L, Peristadt H, Henry R, Richards R. Leadership behaviors for successful university-community collaborations to change curricula. Acad Med. 1999;74:1227–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bland CJ, Starnaman S, Wersal L, Moorhead-Rosenberg L, Zonia S, Henry R. Curricular change in medical schools: how to succeed. Acad Med. 2000;75:575–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bland CJ, Starnaman S, Harris D, Henry R, Hembroff L. “No fear” curricular change: monitoring curricular change in the WK Kellogg Foundation’s National Initiative on Community Partnerships and Health Professions Education. Acad Med. 2000;75:623–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson B. A peer-reviewed collection of short reports from around the world on innovative approaches to medical education. Med Educ. 2018 May;52(5):546–7. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muller JH, Jain S, Loeser H, Irby DM. Lessons learned about integrating a medical school curriculum: perceptions of students, faculty and curriculum leaders. Med Educ. 2008;42(8):778–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Medical EducationUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineKansas CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Family and Community MedicineUniversity of Kansas School of MedicineWichitaUSA

Personalised recommendations