Minutes
Evaluation Subcommittee
September 27, 2000

12:05 Dr. Rarey called meeting to order.

Agenda: Try to have closure on fulfilling part of the evaluation of the curriculum.
Identify some of the objectives that we are going to work on today. Chair proposes that we tackle objective 1. To see how competencies are being addressed. We can report backto the CC how we are doing.

Rooks: this is self reporting who is addressing which competency. How is it being addressed…
Maybe we ought to look at the competency areas and take the next step.

How much of this do you want to track (romrell)?
Rooks: not sure you need to, an evaluate process outside of what you are tracking.
Do you want us to indicate competent and noncompetent and leave it at that level or go beyond that.
Kellner: stick with competent and noncompetent.

Asking faculty c or nonc, then make a judgment about beyond minimal competency there is a spectrum of behavior and we use that data to assign a grade. That's how it works (rooks)

Parker: which objectives we should work on--what are our criteria are? Those that most impact on our curriculum, easiest and quickest to do? What criteria do you want us to look at?

KER: those that are pertinent, not necessarily easiest, a combination of both.
Small: some will have more impact on our curriculum that others. What other criteria:
Major impact.
KER: need to get into the principles.
Rooks: careful not to mix and match too much. Are the competencies being adequately taught is a discussion we have not tackled.

Do objective #3, 5, 8 and 9 were suggestions thrown out on the table.
Kellner: we should be able to look back at the data generated last academic year.

KER: are you suggesting we add objective #1 to the list? How about #2? (ker asked the group).
#2 should we continue to look at it, abandon it or modify it. (romrell)

KER: I think we should do #3, identify questions in a survey and get it out to faculty.
Romrell: I think an interim cycle between the LCME accreditation (maybe every 3-4 years between the LCME site visits).

Rooks: I think make 4 clinical presentations and take competencies out.
Kellner: are we making this harder than it needs to be.
Rooks: some of these things are not linked in the right way, as in obj 1. How ddoes hthis data tell us if we are in fcact successfully administereing a competency-based currriculum. Does ot data suggest we are following that model (not sure how you do that).
Kellner: yes, you can do that. Keep it simple.

Roomrell: if a studenthas gone through curr and rec'd apssing scores, and you feel he/she not competent, you have disparity of grades.
Rooks: grades do not necessarily reflect competent.

Rtw: look at the way students are evluated (obj 1). Is that complete reflection of how the curr is evaluated. Methods of instruction…no where do I see the methods of evalatuion wil be evaluated.

Small: principles 4 is key…would like to see a more definitive statement in the competencies that the students have to teach themselves how to fish…
Physiican scholar - needs work on (kellner) make sure this is looked at hby the group at another time.

Rooks: we mix two things in our obje list: 1)3 objectives that are statement of intent to follow educaitonal design.. #2 and 3 syas we are going to collect data (for what, and why?). Items 6,7,8 and 9 states things we are going to do, but not why or related to whhat. What pirnciples can we in fact deisgn to look at (1, 4, 5) . Are there other principles out there? Of the principles that don'thave system how are we going to do with those.
(a list of things to do and deisgn a curriculum base of overall review).. (2 things)

KER: do we have a strategy of how we look at #1, 4, 5?

Rooks: the way to do it - go through the principles and go through 1 by 1,,, and how do we assess it.

Rooks volunteered to go through the principles based on the idea (group agreed).
Rtw: put it in some where that we will look at evaluations (objective 1 or 5).

KER: looking at reorganizaiton of objectives 1, 4 and 5, should be gry to deveop a ffaculty survey and get input from them?
Small: not until we see the product of Dr. rooks labor.
Rooks:yes, but later. Will report 2 weeks from today. Hatch agreed to work with him. Asked to send it around in draft form to committee members for input.

Ker: determine format for evaluaiton of courses and clerkships in another meeting. Needd to reassess what we think we are going to do this year. Go before the Cc to get support…

Meeting adjourned at 12:45 pm.