University of Virginia School of
Minutes – 09/12/13
Pediatric Conference Room, 4:00 p.m.
Present (underlined) were: Gretchen Arnold, Stephen Borowitz, Megan Bray, Donna Chen, Peter Ham, Donald Innes (Chair), Sean Jackson, Keith Littlewood, Nancy McDaniel, Bart Nathan, Sabrina Nunez, Neeral Shah, Amita Sudhir, Linda Waggoner-Fountain, Casey White, Bill Wilson, Mary Kate Worden, Yassaman Pourkazemi, Jean-Baptiste Maitre, Derick Thiel (alternate Tom Jenkins), Elizabeth Bradley, Debra Reed (secretary)
Announcements. The September 10 Next Generation Grand rounds presentation presentation “Engaging the Digital Learner” by Curtis L. Whitehair can be seen at:
Attendance at lectures and use of laptops show clear generational approaches. Digital Natives like to receive information quickly and from multiple sources, and that is considered by them to be relevant, active and instantly useful. They gather information through a multistep process that involves grazing, then a "deep dive," and a feedback loop where they “talk back” to information. In Web 2.0 content is not delivered to learners but co-constructed with them. Digital natives multitask in a state of ““continuous partial attention.” Overload is a problem. For information to be relevant, important and useful, it needs to be processed. Simpler, smaller messages (Tweets) or ending active participation may be a compensatory mechanism.
Physiological stress of digital overload: Increased heart rate, Increased cortisol and adrenaline levels, Migraines, Retarded reading skills, Reduced attention spans, and Restlessness.
Psychological effects: Stress, Anxiety, Depression, Low motivation, Panic
- Mind, Brain & Behavior System (MB&B) Review
Elizabeth Bradley led a review of the 2013 MB&B System for 2013
with comparison to the 2012 System. The 2013 September 20, 2012
Curriculum Committee minutes of the MB&B Review were reviewed http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/education/medical-students/UMEd/curriculum/minutes/minutes-09-20.12.html
Several content changes will take place in 2014 as some elements of the Human Behavior component, e.g. Families, Aging & Loss, Life Cycle, have been moved to the Foundations of Medicine course. Other topics, e.g. sleep will remain with MBB.
· The 2014 MB&B will be nine weeks. The system leaders will strive to preserve the long weekend near the mid-point. · The sequence should be adjusted so that anatomy is earlier in the system and precedes pathology. Additional support may be needed for the cost of brain removal. · Previews (overviews) of the upcoming week should be provided. Email? · Psychiatry Learning Objectives and readings need specificity and direction (paring).
a. Clinical relevance and application: As in years past, MBB was praised for it’s clinical relevance, and for the many teaching activities that encouraged the application of clinical material. Three of particular note were the Neurology Case Discussions, the CPD patients and the in class patient presentations, and the physician panels. These activities bring together and solidify challenging material in a clinically relevant context that is memorable to students. b. Overall organization of MBB: The students felt the overall pace and organization of the 10-week course into 3 discrete modules was effective for learning. They also appreciated how the material built across a single week, and then across multiple weeks, as this provided many opportunities for reinforcement of material. The students did comment that it would be helpful to have an email previewing the week ahead. c. Order of material: Students felt placement the Anatomy and Pathology content should be reviewed. Their was concern that the order didn’t best support learning, and felt that by placing Anatomy earlier in the System, the students would have a firmer understanding of the structure and function of the brain, on which to then learn Pathology and other material more effectively. d. Content delivery: Again as last year, the students voiced their concern of having the Human Behavior material in class, while other more difficult material is taught as online learning modules. e. Quality of materials and LOs: Students voiced concern regarding the quality of the Human Behavior resources, the Psychiatry LOs, and the Psychiatry readings.
a. System Leadership: As last year, the students praised the MBB System Leadership. They commented repeatedly on the responsiveness that Drs. Worden and Nathan exhibited to student comments and concerns. Students appreciated their kind and caring demeanor, and their passion for and skill in teaching. b. Clinical Relevance: Again, following last year’s comments, the students praised the clinical relevance of the MBB System. From content to process, the material was provided in a clinical context that both reinforced student learning, and continually reminded them of how it is a prelude to their future as physicians. c. Content Delivery: The strongest concern voiced by the students focused on the delivery of some content. Students comment that the Human Behavior material is appropriate for SDL delivery, and they feel the neurology content should be delivered in class, and not as SDLs.
- Note to Clerkships. It is asked that anatomy learning
objectives be placed (repeated) in appropriate clerkships, e.g.
Surgery, Surgery Specialties.
Assessment Guidelines The Curriculum Committee gave consideration to providing more time for the first examinations in medical school as students are adjusting to the pace and intensity. After considerable discussion it was the considered opinion of the majority that all courses should allot a standard 1.5 minutes per question on the summative and formative examinations. Clinical vignettes should be carefully and concisely written with consideration of reading time.
- Delivery of New Material Prior to Examinations New material
delivered the day an assessment opens, e.g. Friday morning material
prior to an examination weekend, should not be tested on that
examination, but can be tested on later examinations. This does not
apply to quizzes, iRATs, etc.
- PROBLEM SETs The discussion of “Problem Sets” continued
regarding whether standardization was needed and how to improve the
quality of the exercises so that they were challenging and focusing on
application, analysis and evaluation in group settings. The exercises
need to “be worth working in a group.”
Work is needed to improve Problem Sets so students want to come but I would not make them required. It is best not to restrict the definition of Problem Sets. Faculty should be encouraged to develop relatively hard problem sets so students want to be there to figure out how to solve them. I would not post those sessions as podcasts but make them optional. If some do better solving them on their own, so be it, as some will learn best that way.
- Assessment Point Value A discussion of assessment
point value began with discussion of the following – here a more
detailed proposal for further discussion at the next meeting.
All formative questions should be worth no more than approximately one-half the value of a summative question for the corresponding summative period.
-No summative question in a three-week summative period (30 questions per week for the summative) should be worth more than 0.67% of the final grade.
-No summative question in a four-week summative period (30 questions per week for the summative) should be worth more than 0.5% of the final grade.
Donald J. Innes, Jr., M.D.