Report of Task Force on Course/Clerkship Evaluation

Task Force Members:

Lynn Romrell, Parker Small, Pat Alguire, John Meuleman, Ed Meyer, Ben Stevens

Procedure

The task force reviewed the concept map and the matrix of evaluation methods vs criteria, paying special attention to the criteria to be evaluated. We filled in the boxes of the matrix (see attachment A). This exercise made it very clear that the course/clerkship director is the most important factor in determining the quality of a course or clerkship. This is especially true when the director has some latitude in selecting the teaching faculty. The exercise also made it clear that the debriefing sessions are very effective. We then reviewed the existing course evaluation forms and found them to omit many of the desired criteria.

Recommendations

1. The responsibility and power of the course/clerkship director must be increased. This can be done by having them give greater input into teaching faculty evaluation.
2. The selection of course/clerkship directors should be a decision shared between the Curriculum Committee and the chairperson of the relevant department.
3. There should be a set of questions which are included in each course/clerkship evaluation (see attachment B for recommended list).
4. COMEC should assist with the analysis of information from the student evaluations, student debriefing and student performance. However, the course/clerkship director should ensure the flow of this information to the Curriculum Committee. Depending on the nature and size of the course or clerkship, this could be done by a written report and sometimes an oral report to the Curriculum Committee. Written course reports from the previous year or two should be made available to students participating in the course debriefing session.

   ---

Proposed Course Evaluation Questions

I. Teach What.

1. The stated goals and objectives were helpful in defining my responsibilities and guiding my study.
2. The content was well integrated with previous or concurrent courses.
3. The skills I was expected to acquire were consistent with course goals and were appropriate for my level of training.

II. Teach How.

1. The lectures were an effective means of presenting course content.
2. The small groups (with identifier of small groups if more than one type was used) were an effective means of helping me learn.
3. There was an appropriate balance of teaching methods (lectures, small groups, labs, etc.)
4. The (identifier of instructional methodology) enhanced my learning.
5. Examinations were a fair assessment of the material I was expected to learn.
6. (Basic Science): There was sufficient clinical contact/exposure to provide a clinical context for my learning. (Clinical Science): There was sufficient contact with appropriate patients on this clerkship as well as an appropriate balance of responsibility and supervision during patient care.
7. Basic sciences were well integrated into the clinical instruction.

III. Outcome

1. The knowledge, attitude, and skills learned during the course/clerkship were what I think I need.
2. The feedback provided to me was timely, useful, and fair.
3. The course provided opportunities for me to self-identify additional learning needs outside of formal teaching sessions and adequate time to learn about them.
4. How much did you learn by memorization without understanding in this course?
5. Instructors were sensitive to individual student differences such as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic factors, ethnic origin, and students with disabilities.

IV. Structure

1. The faculty projected a positive attitude and were available to the students.
2. The course was well organized in terms of orientation, syllabus, and scheduling.
3. The time allocated for the course was appropriate.
4. The handouts were useful and appropriate to the content.

V. Global