Minutes 062309

Minutes 062309

Curriculum Evaluation Community
Meeting Minutes
June 23, 2009

Prepared by: Elizabeth Bradley, Ph.D.

In attendance: Elizabeth Bradley, Melanie McCollum, Veronica Michaelsen, Ellen Ramsey, Jerry Short, John Herr, Joel Hockensmith, Sue Pollart, Donna Chen, Amy Alson, Linda Waggoner-Fountain, Jeff Young.  Unable to attend: Troy Buer, Keith Littlewood, Evan Heald, Emily Binns, Jenny Hettema, Bob Bloodgood, Jim Martindale, Nicole White, Brad Bradenham, Laura Page, Emily Binns, Jon Hemler, Carl Creutz, Eve Bargmann, Chris Peterson, Gene Corbett, Tina Ho, Anne Chapin, Tina Brashers.

Major Discussion Points:

  1. Introduction of new community members and consultants. To familiarize new participants with the purpose, language, and goals of the CEC, we discussed and reviewed the following concepts/questions: Why is the curriculum changing?  What is active learning, integration?  What are the goals of the new curriculum? What are the 12 Competencies? What are the expectations of the LCME? What is the intended outcome/product of the new curriculum?

  2. The Dean's request, which Dr. Canterbury asked the CEC to consider:  "Define parameters of longitudinal study on medical student outcomes. First year (FY10) will define the study and provide the baseline. Second through fifth years (FY11-FY14) will gather data. Fourth and fifth years (FY13 and FY14) will provide initial data for evaluating outcomes of the new curriculum."

    a.  The meaning of the request was unclear to the group. Did the Dean expect concrete outcomes to be defined today?  Or did he merely want us to verify his timeline?

    b.  The group discussed the challenges of identifying outcomes at this point in the curriculum design process. Many possible student outcome measures were discussed, but the rationale for each must be clarified further before a final determination is made. It was decided that in addition to measuring the longer term outcomes of the implemented curriculum, the CEC will evaluate the newly designed curriculum for "appropriateness" of content and delivery. The response sent to Dr. Canterbury was as follows:

    The Curriculum Evaluation Community will evaluate curriculum content, curricular processes and student outcomes using a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures.  Selection of specific measures will be guided by the five goals of the curriculum reform. These goals, as understood by the CEC, are:

    1.  Assure all graduates demonstrate mastery of the 12 UVA School of Medicine Competencies Required of the Contemporary Physician.
    2.  Integrate content around the organ systems.
    3.  Integrate clinical and basic science content across the four years and within courses/blocks.
    4.  Utilize more active learning methodologies and provide a learner centered curriculum.
    5.  Provide frequent and developmental opportunities for clinical skill learning throughout the curriculum.

    With the Next Generation Curriculum still under development, it is difficult to identify specific longitudinal outcomes that will be measured. Certainly the 12 competencies will provide guidance, and the USMLE scores will continue to be tracked, but others parameters will be identified as the Next Generation Curriculum evolves. Further, as we reach out to the faculty for input into the process, several individuals have proposed novel ideas about what to measure and how, and within the next six months we will have a specific plan of Program Evaluation that will include specific measurements to be followed.

  3. Update on Stakeholder interviews: Content analysis of the stakeholder interviews is ongoing. Report on findings will be complete by late July.

Action Items (Person(s) responsible):
1. Complete stakeholder interviews and content analysis (EB, VM, CP)
2. Review LCME requirements regarding Curriculum Evaluation (EB, VM, others?)
3. Identify evaluation model/framework. (EB/VM)


Next Meeting:  Thursday July 9th, 10:00-11:30,
Library Administration Conference Room