Template  for Annual Written Course Report

 

II. Written Report

 

II.B.  Provide the final grade distribution for the current class and the previous three years in the form of this sample table (Sample from Systemic Pathology)

 

1.  Final Grade distribution for current and previous three years.   There were 120 students in the class and a summary of the final grade distribution by number of students and in percent for the current class and past three years is provided below:

 

Year	Grade A	Grade B+	Grade B	Grade C+	Grade C	Grade D/F	Total Students
Students 2001-2002	35	23	37	9	12	4	120
Percent 2001 - 2002 2000 - 2001 1999 - 2000 1998 - 1999	29 24 25 33	19 10 17 18	31 36 33 41	8 18 22 18	10 9 12 6	3 3 3 2	120 116 112 118

*  Four students whose cumulative test scores exceeded 95% received an A+.

 

2.  NBME subject examination. The NBME subject examination has been given for the past three years.  The table below compares the scores from the current class to prior performance.

 

Year	Mean Score	Percentile	Range	Percentile	Number below 10th percentile	Number above 90th percentile
1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001* 2001 - 2002	74.6 73.8 70.7 75.2	58 53 35 61	56 to 97 55 to 93 54 to 88 59 - 96	1 to 99 1 to 99 1 to 96 2 to 99	8 8 15 7	19 Unknown 2 18

*   Norm scores were updated in 2000-01 to reflect the performance of students who sat for the Pathology Subject Test for the first time during the 1997-98 academic year.  The update was justified because student performance has improved since the original 1992-94 based norms were generated.

 

The Pearson correlation between student scores on the subject examination and their scores on U/F examinations was 0.7967, indicating a solid correlation between course examination and the subject exam score.  A plot of the scores is given below: 

 

The key-phrase item analysis compares UF students to the national average on each question.  These data were reviewed and stratified according to subject areas of the course.  The results are presented in the table below.

 

Subject	Number  Of Questions	Percent Correct			Cumulative Difference	2000-01 Cumulative Difference  # questions in (  )
		U/F	National	Difference
General Pathology Cardiovascular path Pulmonary path GI pathology Renal pathology Skin pathology Hematopathology Neuropathology Reproductive path Pediatric path Endocrine path Musculoskeletal Genetic disorders Other	21 10 5 16 7 7 11 10 7 5 11 2 4 9	78 81 86 71 80 75 61 77 76 81 65 65 61 75	73 71 77 71 78 71 66 81 63 75 74 74 68 74	+5 +10 +9 0 +2 +4 -5 -4 +13 +6 -9 -9 -7 +1	+118 +101 +45 +2 +15 +30 -50 -42 +92 +28 -100 -18 -28 +9	+18  (27) +84  (10) +115 (13) +29  (14) +2  (9) +19  (3) -139 (13) +50  (11) +70  (13) -22  (2) -23  (8) -14  (2)

Cumulative difference is weighted by the number of questions asked and indicates the overall effect of a given section on total performance.  Since the number of questions in a section varies from year to year, the average scores indicate how well we do in a given section independent of the number of questions asked.

 

 

This analysis revealed the following areas of relative strength.

 

Relative Strength	Average Performance
General Pathology Cardiovascular pathology Pulmonary pathology Reproductive pathology		GI Pathology Renal pathology Skin pathology Musculoskeletal path

 

not enough to equal the national average.  In part, this improvement was due to In comparison to last year, students did considerably better in hematopathology but better teaching of anemias with the return of Dr. Lottenberg.  In addition, Dr. Douglas provided new leadership of this section.  Students did less well in neuropathology this year but it was an area of strength last year and is not cause for concern as no trend has been established.  The major deficiencies identified by the subject exam are endocrine pathology and to a lesser extent genetic disorders.  We attempted to address the weakness in endocrine pathology this year by allotting 6 hours of instruction to laboratory testing of endocrine disorders.  The anatomic pathology of endocrine disorders was not addressed and must be a priority for next year.

 

3.  Student scores relative to objectives.  Students were provided both global and detailed objectives for the course.  The detailed objectives were provided for each subject to cover lecture and laboratory exercises.  Examples of detailed objectives are provided in Appendix B, Page 14.  Faculty examination questions were based on these detailed objectives.   In cardiovascular pathology, each exam question was identified as to the objectives it addressed. This information was provided to students during the examination review that follows each examination. The mean scores on the examinations indicated that students achieved a respectable B grade for these objectives.  In debriefings, the students stated that the exam questions were consistent with the course objectives.

 

4.  Representative examination questions.   Representative examination questions are submitted as Appendix C, page16.

 

 

II. C. Student Evaluation of the Course/Course Director(Pharmacology)

 

1. Synopsis of written evaluation of the course: In general, the students were positive about the course. Out of 102 students, 8 1 % of students rated the course as very good and excellent and 15% rated it as good for an overall rating of 4.0. Some of the comments strong points of the course are: very well organized, instructors nicely focused on the high points of the course, transition from instructor to instructor was very smooth, very good handouts, covered most of the drugs we see on the board exam and drugs we need to know for practice, truly enjoyed learning, antibiotic review (with the "Perception Analyzer") was very well done, a review of some basic physiological principles in the introduction of the lectures was helpful, really enjoyed the course, covered material at good pace, material useful, interesting and relevant, and course very well taught. In the weak points, comments such as some lecturers were overly dry and monotonous, course did not cover all the drugs for the board exam, difficulty in grasping some material, reviews (rotations) not very useful, and too many shelf exams in the last week of school.

 

2. Synopsis of the student briefings: The course overall was said to be very good. The newly introduced antibiotic review using the "Perception Analyzer" (Dial-in-Review) was liked by all. It was suggested that more such reviews should be used in future. A few other suggestions were made. Antiarrhythmic drugs should be taught in the same week when students are learning EKG in the Clinical Diagnosis course. More clinical co-relations should be introduced (such as for general anesthesia, antibiotics). More clinical cases should be included in the small group discussions. Question and answer type review sessions (before each sectional exam) should be eliminated. Final reviews (rotations) should be changed to increase attendance and effectiveness, for example by using the "Perception Analyzer" for more involvement of the students. The NBME Subject examination should be kept, and it should count 20% or less for the final grade. For more details, please see the minutes of the debriefings (available from Medical Education).

 

3. Summary of student evaluations of the course director and the administrative support: Out of 102 students, 83% students rated the course director for course organization as excellent or very good, while 14% rated him as good for the overall rating of 4. 1. Here are some of the comments. "Dr. Garg did an excellent job with course. The best set of lectures I have had all year, Dr. Garg did a great job in the order of topics. They flowed well together. The course packet was very well organized and very easy to use. Dr. Garg worked very well with student concerns through his comments and actions. He showed his number one priority in education and helping the medical students"

 

 

II. D. EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION (Sample from Medical Aspects of Human Genetics)

1. Hours in various modalities

Lecture                                                            13.5 hrs

Case Presentation                                           6

Review Session (small group)             4

Worksheets/ Practice Problem                        3

 

2. Overall comments from students were very positive (see above).  Most issues revolved around the timing of the course in the curriculum.  Students did not like the clustering of this course around exams in other courses.

3.     Critique  Case presentations continue to be the strength of this course.

An emphasis was placed on having key lectures done by faculty members who have demonstrated a recurring commitment to the course.  This has helped the overall quality of teaching.  Strengths of this approach has been greater cohesiveness of the lectures, the ability to coordinate lectures and case presentations, and assurance that the early lectures lay foundations necessary for more difficult later concepts.  Some students expressed strong feelings that too much emphasis is placed on mendelian inheritance (usually taught to undergraduates), however the course directors strongly feel that review is absolutely necessary. 

 

 

 

E.  Course Director's Evaluation of Course (Sample from Systemic Pathology)

 

1.  Appropriateness of course to general professional education. A thorough understanding of disease processes is essential if physicians are to recognize, diagnose, and treat diseases accurately.  Pathology is the study of the cause and the course of disease. To render diagnosis and to guide therapy, future physicians must appreciate the range of abnormalities possible in an organ or tissue.  A doctor's skill in diagnosis and treatment begins with a knowledge of disease patterns, both structural and chemical.  In Systemic Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, diseases that affect specific organ systems are discussed in a systematic and compressive way, emphasizing their anatomical alterations, laboratory medicine findings, and clinico-pathologic correlations.  It is our belief that understanding the scientific basis of disease distinguishes the physician from other members of the health care delivery team.  As such, medical students of today must have a thorough understanding of the etiology and pathogenesis of disease as well as an appreciation of the morphologic and functional changes that determine clinical signs, symptoms, course and prognosis of disease.

 

2.  Strengths and weaknesses of course

 

Among the strengths of the course I would cite the following.   

 

(a) Students understand that the subject matter and concepts they are learning are essential to the scientific foundation of clinical practice. They are excited about learning pathology and approach the subject with determination. 

 

(b) The Department of Pathology faculty is interested in teaching and concerned with medical student education.  Dr. Crawford, the departmental chair, fully supports this faculty commitment and encourages quality teaching by the faculty. 

 

(c) The course material is presented using a variety of teaching modalities that keeps student interest.  These modalities include lecture, gross specimens, UF produced pathology images on the Internet and CD-ROM, computer assisted instructional cases, student class presentations, clinical rotations, and problem based learning. 

 

(d) Correlative teaching between pathology, radiology, oncology, and neurology helps integrate subject matter and place pathology in context with other subjects. 

 

(e) The course is continuously updated with new material being added and some older material discarded.

 

(f)  Strong performance on the NBME subject exam in pathology.

 

Potential problems and weaknesses are as follows.

 

(a)  Students focus their studies almost exclusively on faculty handouts. They rarely consult outside reading and do not read the textbook to clarify issues or to supplement their knowledge base.  To address this problem, we are encouraging faculty to ask some questions based on assigned reading in the textbook.

 

 

3.  Goals for next year

 

1.           Hematopathology will move to a new time slot prior to Thanksgiving in order to relieve the scheduling problem with faculty attending the American Society of Hematology meeting that takes place in December.

 

2.     The following leadership changes will be implemented.

Dr. Douglas will coordinate hematopathology instead of Dr. Braylan.

Dr. Massoll will take over coordinating GYN pathology from Dr. Hardt.

Dr. Brown takes on the responsibility for teaching anatomic aspects of endocrine disorders and will coordinate teaching with Dr. Winter covering endocrine tests.

Dr. Chen Liu will coordinate GI pathology.

 

3.     Two important changes will be made in pediatric pathology.  First, we will decompress the teaching of pediatric pathology by spreading it over 6 days instead of 4. The total teaching time will remain the same but the it will be less intense and allow students to review lecture material prior to lab.  Second, Dr. Donnelly will reduce his lecture commitment as we recruit new faculty for at least 50% of the lectures. He will remain in change of organizing the laboratories.

 

4.     The pathology rotations will be improved with development of specific objectives and direction to the faculty to focus on educational cases rather than daily cases.  We will explore making the rotations more interactive. 

 

5.     Chairman's Rounds will be retained since they appear to be well received and meet the objectives of introducing students to pathology practice and the role of pathology in health care delivery.