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.