Curriculum Committee Minutes Ð January 25, 2005
Present: Caro, Rarey, Davidson, Watson, Sarah, Kaunitz, Rathe, Nicole, Harrell, Butson, Doug, Romrell, Genuardi, Sumners, Hatch, Vidaurreta, Meuleman, Gulig, Gold, Pauly, Normann, Wallace (Margie McGarva recording)
Match Day - March 17
Skit nite - April 15
Graduation - May 21. At present, the class is working on finding a graduation speaker.
Dr. Hatch: LCME is evaluating whether patient interactions on clinical rotations meet clerkship objectives. This will necessitate the enhancement of existing patient logs. This is a priority for the Clerkship Director Committee.
Dr. Romrell is presently working on scheduling for the 3rd year class and making changes; 3rd years are starting to plan their elective year.
Dr. Watson pointed out that the faculty enrolled in the Master Educators Program are a diverse group, with some established exceptional teachers. Dr. Rarey noted that 20 faculty enrolled in the program; for the first time, several are from the College of Dentistry and the PA program as well.
Continuing report
on courses and clerkships
by Kyle E. Rarey, Ph.D., Chair, Evaluation Subcommittee
Dr. Rarey reported on the second year, 1st semester courses on syllabi and written reports. All but one course director submitted a report, which is still outstanding (Medical Ethics), and Biochemistry course report was late and is presently being reviewed by the Evaluation Subcommittee.
2nd yr second semester course syllabi are very good. Chris Sistrom is assisting Pat Abbott in getting the clinical radiology course syllabus online using the guidelines as approved by the Curriculum Committee. Written reports of 2nd yr, 2nd semester: all are likewise doing well, with the exception of clinical radiology.
A new parameter of evaluating the course report is course feedback (see chart).Student evaluations of these courses are very good.Students evaluated each course based on faculty instruction, organization and management and the performance of the course director.
Dr. Davidson remarked that this validates the efforts of the evaluation subcommittee, because courses should not be evaluated only on the basis of student evaluation. . Dr. Hatch said that we need to make students more discriminating consumers. Educate them with optimal learning processes and have them hold us to that standard.
Dr. Romrell stated that there is room for improvement in the provision of feedback.
The data for Step 1 and 2 were reviewed. While student performance on Step 1 is well above the national average, as are the performances on subject exams, the Step 2 scores continue to be below the national average in many cases. Three students failed Step 2. A discussion about the cause for this took place, with several possible reasons being raised.
1. It is felt that faculty are telling students that they don't have to study as hard for Step 2 because they don't have to pass it to graduate.
2. Faculty may be telling students that Step 2 is easy and that they donÕt have to study to pass it (when in fact the pass and fail rates for Step 1 and 2 are very similar)
3. Students may not be given enough time to study during clerkships.
4. Students may not want to take Step 2 early because the results might jeopardize their match status, especially if they did very well on Step 1. In these cases the results are not used in residency decisions, and the students may not be as motivated.
Dr. Romrell suggested that what really drives the scores for students is residency; he indicated that it won't be long before program directors will be requiring students to pass their step to in order to get into the residency programs.
Dr. Rarey noted that the Workload Report Ð is just starting to be tracked beginning with 2002. At this point, the data relies on student feedback. The question about feedback is asked at the end of the course. He noted that this data means that we are in compliance with LCME. Dr. Davidson stated that it is the responsibility of Curriculum Committee to make recommendations as it sees fit to make sure that curriculum is in compliance with LCME standards.
Dr. Davidson asked for motions to accept the report by Dr. Rarey as stated. Dr. Watson made a motion to accept this report, and Dr. Kaunitz seconded the motion. The motion was accepted unanimously and the report from the Evaluation Subcommittee is accepted with great appreciation.
Dr. Davidson asked Dr. Rarey to submit recommendations to him to assist in improvement of syllabi in courses and clerkships that have fallen below what is expected.
A future discussion about the 4th year curriculum study time is to be reviewed. A few members thought that there could be an elective called something like preparation for Step 2. Dr. Kaunitz stated that if it were a more routine part of the curriculum it would benefit the school; Dr. Wallace remarked that at some point, students need to be responsible for their own education, and it would teach self-initiative. Sarah Monihan-Estes said it would be in the best interest of the students to provide a structure for studying, because 4th years go from so much structure to nothing. Dr. Harrell also noted that there needs to be specific direction in the 4th year to carve out blocks of time to study.
Meeting adjourned 8:55 a.m.