University of Virginia School of Medicine
Pediatric Conference Room, 4:00 p.m.
Present (underlined) were: Gretchen Arnold, Dan Becker, Robert Bloodgood, Megan Bray, Eugene Corbett, Thomas Gampper, Wendy Golden, Donald Innes (Chair), Keith Littlewood, Veronica Michaelsen, Mohan Nadkarni, Chris Peterson, Jerry Short, Linda Waggoner-Fountain, Bill Wilson, Mary Kate Worden, Lisa Herrmann, Evan Lapinsky, Brad Bradenham, Debra Reed (secretary) Guest: Elizabeth Bradley
- Progress Report from the Curriculum Evaluation Community. Elizabeth Bradley and Veronica Michaelsen presented activities of the Curriculum Evaluation Community to date. A Logic Model has been developed. Stakeholders in the curriculum have been interviewed and an evaluation plan is being finalized.
Curriculum Evaluation Community: Statement of Purpose:
The development of the "Next Generation" Medical Education Curriculum creates an important responsibility for the parallel development of a robust system of program evaluation. The Curriculum Evaluation Community is charged with the task of developing and implementing an evaluation system to determine the degree to which the goals of the new curriculum are achieved. Evaluation data will be reported to and utilized by the Curriculum Committee for continuous curricular improvement.
Five goals are guiding the curriculum renewal process:
Goal 1: Assure all graduates demonstrate mastery of the 12 UVA School of Medicine Competencies required of the Contemporary Physician.
Goal 2: Integrate content around the organ systems
Goal 3: Integrate clinical and basic science content across the four years and within systems.
Goal 4: Utilize more active learning methodologies and provide a learner-centered curriculum.
Goal 5: Provide frequent and developmental opportunities for clinical skill learning throughout the curriculum.
The following circular development, implementation, evaluation and reflection/analysis plan is in development.
The following Outcome Logic Model will be used by developers to make decisions on evaluation inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact.
The above items while intentionally somewhat vague at this stage will be refined and better defined as the evaluation plan is developed.
Many evaluation questions have been submitted by the Evaluation Community and the stakeholders in the new curriculum. For example:
Sample Evaluation Questions: Do the planned MCM and System curricula adequately meet the 5 goals of the curriculum renewal?
What impact does the new Medical Education building have on ____( teaching, learning, faculty, staff, students)?
How did student assessment change from the old to the new curriculum?
How does the logic and sequence of the curriculum support the 5 curriculum goals?
How do the old and new curriculum compare on...( student well-being, USMLE scores, MCQ's by discipline)?
How well did MCM prepare the students for the Organ Systems?
How are students assessed as they progress through the four years?
Are student evaluations entered into the system within the 2 week window as required by the LCME?
What type of faculty development was offered in preparation of the new curriculum and why?
What was the impact of the faculty development programming?
How well do the 3rd and 4th year students think the pre-clinical phase prepared them for their
Over 150 questions have been submitted. These questions will be refined and prioritized. Baseline evaluation data will also be obtained from the Classes of 2010-2013 who are under the current curriculum
Prioritization of evaluation questions - Curriculum Committee
Determine how well the evaluation questions inform the 5 goals of the curriculum renewal- Curriculum Evaluation Community
Projects to consider immediately:
- Creating rubrics for reviewing System content & delivery
- Well-Being survey?
- PACM Skill Study?
- Team Skills survey?
- Development of self-report clinical preparation for SMD 2011+?
- Basic Science MCQ for after 3rd year for SMD 2011+?
- Student opinion survey about how well curriculum covers the 12 Competencies?
Evaluation of curriculum development process
Identify statistician and other resource needs
Concerns from the committee regarding "evaluation" burn out were raised. The Evaluation Community is aware of this issue and is attempting to minimize "over" evaluation.
Timing of evaluations is also being discussed. Some evaluation data may be more relevant if obtained from students in the foundations of medicine years, clinical medicine years, or even the post-graduate years. Logistics of obtaining information in the post-graduate years is being discussed.
Elizabeth Bradley distributed a draft of their Program Evaluation Plan to the Curriculum Committee. Members of the Committee were asked to review this document carefully and submit suggestions for additions, deletions, modifications to the plan to Elizabeth Bradley ejb4a@Virginia.EDU. Suggestions on ways to get more "measurable" data would also be appreciated.
Learning Objectives. Veronica Michaelsen briefly discussed the development of learning objectives for the new curriculum. Learning objectives are a necessity for basic instructional design. Verbs in the learning objectives are very important. What is expected of the learner (to do, to learn, to discuss) should be defined clearly, taught in a manner that expectations can be achieved and evaluated based on these expectations.
Learning goals are broad and nonspecific. Learning objectives need to be far more specific. Learning activities must be defined to meet clearly outlined objectives. Sue Pollart will begin working on faculty development as soon as the objectives for the systems are in place.
Two books to assist in developing objectives are available in the Health Sciences Library:
Creating Significant Learning Experiences - An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses by Dee Fink,. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. Donald J. Innes, Jr., M.D.
Understanding by Design by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, Prentice Hall; Expanded 2nd edition, (July 24, 2005)
Department Financial Support. Recently concerns regarding financial support for departments in the new curriculum have arisen. However, there are no changes planned to the financial support structure for basic science departments in the new curriculum. Departmental concern regarding possible increased faculty time devoted to teaching will also need to be addressed as part of faculty development.
Faculty Development. The mock classroom in the library will be used for faculty development in the new curriculum. Objectives for the systems will be posted on the walls as they are finalized. Faculty will be taught alternative teaching methodologies as they are developed from the objectives.
Donald J. Innes, Jr., M.D.