Minutes 09.23.04

Minutes 09.23.04

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
Minutes
09.23.04

Surgery Conference Room, 4:00 p.m.                        

Present (underlined) were: Reid Adams, Eve BargmannRobert Bloodgood,  Anita Clayton,  Gene Corbett, Donald Innes (Chair),  Howard Kutchai, Marcus Martin, Chris Peterson, Jerry Short, Linda WatsonBill Wilson, Brian Wispelwey, Nnaemeka Anyadike, Michael Richardson, Debra Reed (secretary)

  1. A Computer and Information Literacy Survey developed for the incoming first year medical students was presented by Linda Watson from the Information Management and Critical Thinking Team.  An analysis of the survey showed:

    a. Overall, the incoming students seem to be quite computer literate.  They all have experience with word processing software and most have experience using spreadsheet and presentation software as well.

    b.  Nearly all students own their own computers, and most of them have relatively current machines.  Half of the incoming class has bought or intends to buy a new computer for medical school, indicating that those with outdated computers may be replacing them in the near future.

    c. Despite their computer literacy, students tend to have a lack of experience with information seeking skills.  This inexperience includes basic skills, such as simple database searching, and indicates that they could benefit from instruction in this area.  Information seeking skills will be further analyzed with data from a pretest conducted during orientation and a posttest to be administered in the spring.

    d.  Student learning styles tended toward deep and strategic, rather than surface.  This result indicates that they are goal oriented, and strive for understanding, rather than doing just the minimum needed to get by.

  2. A review of the August 18 - 20 "Cells to Society: An Introduction" was provided by Chris Peterson. Following a brief review of the 3-day course Chris presented a preliminary analysis of the course based on student and faculty surveys.

    The students were positive in their feedback: 52% giving the course an "A", 40% a "B", and 8% a "C".

    When asked what they thought about the course as an introduction to medical school their comments fell into three basic categories 1) Great, Awesome - 34% with comments such as "Prepares you for the science years while helping you keep the big picture of the patient in mind" and "It truly allowed me to think deeply about a major issue facing society and all its facets, from the science, to the patient, to the entire population.", 2) Good, Nice - 65% with comments of "Nice introduction to medicine" and "Addressed societal and cellular issues which serve as a good model for approaching future medical diseases.", and finally 3) Not bad - 1% commenting "Made it clear how little I know."

    Students mentioned that the course allowed them to meet other students and provided an orientation, while emphasizing patients.

    The multi-level anaylsis aspect of the course seemed very successful  (78% positive), e.g. "made me understand [disease] as not only a scientific problem, but as a problem people have to face and change their lives around, although some (22%) had a negative comment, e.g. "less emphasis on the cells aspect of the course than the society aspect."

    When asked what they learned about themselves almost all were positive, e.g. "I should be here.", "I am excited to be here.", "I confirmed that I learn best in ___ style.", "I confirmed that there is a lot for me to learn.", and "I am interested in seeing all sides of a disease.", with few negative comments.

    Most marveled at the diversity of background of classmates and commonality of life ambition and wereimpressed by the quality, talents and capability of classmates and confirmed their expectations. Few negatives.

    Most found the faculty to be student-friendly, approachable, helpful; accomplished and possess immense knowledge; love what they do; genuinely interested in and committed to teaching, and caring compassionate and generous. Few negatives.

    Suggestions included:
    Provide some introductory basic science material - 27
    Improve organization and increase number of presenters at Resource Fair - 14
    Change field trips (choice, more than one, more clinical, better bus drivers) - 13
    Better preparation for small group mentors - 13
    Less lecture time, more small group time - 12
    Others suggested a "better balance society/cells, connect[ing] course activities to course theme, stress[ing] goals of course more often, and better connect[ing] to specific courses.

    Faculty were asked how well they thought the course succeeded in its [first] goal of "demonstrating to first year medical students how the care of a patient raises questions across multiple domains in addition to clinical medicine, especially in biomedical science, society, culture, and economics.
    Well or very well - 21
    Okay, butŠ - 4
    Not sure - 2

    Faculty thought the course succeeded in introducing specific types of learning experiences.
    Very well/excellent - 23
    Partly - 3

    Several faculty suggested an introductory presentation on clinical and basic science aspects of diabetes.

    Additional data and suggestions were presented (See attachment.) and will be considered by the course leaders. Chrtis was asked to present followup and plans for next year in late fall or early winter.

  3. The transition from the current to the new Clerkships, Electives and Selectives  was presented by Don Innes with thanks to Allison Innes and Bill Wilson. A two year transition period is needed beginning in 2005. Neurology moves into the Core Clerkship period and we move from 4 periods of 12 weeks each to 5 periods of 8 weeks each. Students will have increased and earlier exposure to clinical care and a review of basic sciences pertinent to their career choice. See attachment.

  4. Thanks were extended to Reid Adams for technical assistance.

The next meeting will be October 7th.


-DJI