Evaluation Subcommittee - October 23, 1996

Members: Alguire, Duerson, Duff, Lucas, Okun, Romrell, Stevens, Small, Suter, Van Susteren, Webb
Present: Alguire, Duerson, Duff, Lucas, Romrell, Stevens, Van Susteren
Ex-Officio members: Rooks, Watson
Absent: Okun, Suter

There appears to be agreement that we should:

Prepare a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of our current evaluation system and then share it with the Curriculum Committee and perhaps others.
Agree on an ideal evaluation system and develop a plan to implement as much of the system as feasible. (Bob Watson stressed the need to be able to quantitate the quality of instructional programs in order to equitably distribute the 20% of mission based budgeting assigned to quality.)

The following table is my attempt to summarize our initial discussion of "strengths" and "weaknesses."

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

Student Evaluation

Cognitive MCQ too high % of grade in some basic science

2nd yr OSCE no longitudinal evaluation of skills

-Feedback to students clinical grade - comments

-Feedback to faculty is changing teaching

Professional Development

Peer evaluation (year 1, 2 and 4), but... are we teaching what we're evaluating. We punish students for worthwhile extracurricular activities--less study time.

(Professional development score a separate grade or part of "cognitive" grade)

Faculty Evaluation

Peer evaluation in place but... little used. (May be due to "periodic" need).

Course Evaluation

Much info gathered but... not uniform.

Curriculum Evaluation

NBME grades Need clear outcome measures.

LCME

Senior and graduate questionnaires but... data may be out of date.

STRENGTHS	WEAKNESSES
Student Evaluation
Cognitive	MCQ too high % of grade in some basic science
2nd yr OSCE	no longitudinal evaluation of skills
-Feedback to students	clinical grade - comments
-Feedback to faculty is changing teaching
Professional Development
Peer evaluation (year 1, 2 and 4), but...	are we teaching what we're evaluating. We punish students for worthwhile extracurricular activities--less study time.
(Professional development score a	separate grade or part of "cognitive" grade)
Faculty Evaluation
Peer evaluation in place but...	little used. (May be due to "periodic" need).
Course Evaluation
Much info gathered but...	not uniform.
Curriculum Evaluation
NBME grades	Need clear outcome measures.
LCME
Senior and graduate questionnaires but...	data may be out of date.

The next meeting of the Evaluation Subcommittee is Wednesday, October 30, 7:30, a.m. In CG78. The agenda will be continuation of the discussion of strengths and weaknesses.

Updated: September 5, 1997 Author: margie mcgarva/msm@dean.med.ufl.edu