{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023858921161825725, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.609589041095891, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of objectives‐based learning outcomes in a compressed presentation of human structure

Systems‐based curricular changes at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine led to the recognition that course content should be guided by specific, competency‐based, objectives and more precisely, session‐objective‐linked learning outcomes. In our compressed Human Structure curriculum, test items are aligned to both the stated Course Objectives (CO) and given Session Learning Objectives (SO). End of course surveys show our students generally appreciate the conduct of the course, the quality of the lecturers and course content. Faculty were confounded, however, by student self‐reports indicating they are unaware of the presence of CO or concerns that objectives were not made clear. If the students are not aware of CO, then how certain can faculty be that students are accomplishing those objectives and are able to achieve desired learning outcomes.