Dr. Rathe opened the meeting with a demonstration of the Apple airport device and the wireless apple notebook to point out that this is where we are headed in the technology age of computers. That the device will send an infrared signal, much like your TV remote does and there will be no need for wires on the next generation of computers.
This year we had course and clerkship directors agree to judge students in two ways: 1) competency development and 2) grades. We have developed a matrix to record competency development.
Using this matrix we can give a summary report to the Academic Status Committee on whether a student has mastered the competencies and which ones they were weak in. Each student gets a summative report, also hard copy is placed in the student's file in the Student Affairs office. Neuroscience has already done theirs, Anatomy is completing theirs, and Medcal Cell & Tissue Biology is doing it.
Dr. Davidson asked: What does a course grade add to this evaluation?
Dr. Romrell: We have to report a grade to campus. Dr. Ledbetter: It is good at what it does, but does a poor job of distinguishing the superior student.
Dr. Small wanted to know what are students' reponses?
Shireen: we know when we get all exemplaries and grade of A. Wwe know if we get half and half we get a B+. We think that is what is happening.
Chris Hurt made a guest appearance as Communicatons chair for the class of 2003. No standardization as to what is good, exemplary or superior. There is this grader variability.
Dr. Berns asked why does an instructor want to assign a grade to a student? Then there was a lengthy discussion about assigning letter grades or numeric letters to exemplary, superior, competent, marginal, not competent students.
Dr. Cohen suggested to limit the number of categories, competent, not competent or above competency.
Dr. Harris suggestion was to use the competent and non-competent catgory. If someone wants to distinguish a student, write in the comments section a descriptor of how incompetent they were or how exemplary they were. Have behavior and performance described not assigned a grade. A lot of the dicussion revolved around agreeing a "competent, non-competent" scale should be used. Drs. Burchfield and Moseley agreed with Dr. Harris.
| Noncompetent | Competent |
| Describe student's behavior and performance |
Jeff Hall: Liked competent and noncompetent and giving description and formative feedback to the student and probably the college. How do you communicate that outside the college?
Dr. Harris: I think you can give a final grade, but in these areas of competencies, in order to get a handle on that, this is the way you need to go. This allows you to compare the students across the board and is helpful in assigning a letter grade. The old system is largely dependent on a test score. Make the grading more consistent.
Dr. Rarey said that he is pleased we are having this discussion, that it is is a descriptor-based curriculum. The Academic Status Committee is only concerned about who is incompetent.
Ankit Desai: Assign a letter grade to the competencies. Dr. Rooks: said this was one approach.
Chris Hurt: Limit numbers like strongly agree, agree, disagree with competencies; use questions. Use a functional scale like faculty.
Shireen Madani: Yes, but it still is a 5-point scale. Ankit: this was created to g ive feedback and to monitor student development.
Dr. Ledbetter: Grades do 3 things:
2) Then feedback issue
3) Can you identify people that excel in different categories (separate issue but also works for feedback).
Dr. Davidson: Grades that are given in the first two years, no need for them; Reconsider grades given in first year (point 8 that did not pass the Excutive committee).
Shireen Madani: make sure students get specific comments back. She would like to have the comments on record. They could go into letters for residency and maybe more user friendly for attendings. I'm more interested in what the attendings have to say about me and than in comparison to the students.
Dr. Rarey emphasized that every student should get written formative feedback.
Meeting adjourned. Next meeting March 14.