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.