University of Virginia School of Medicine
Curriculum Committee Minutes – 09/20/2012

Present: Gretchen Arnold, Elizabeth Bradley, Mary Kate Worden, Bart Nathan, Peter Ham, Rovert Bloodgood, John Jackson, Student member Brandon Hunter,  Nancy McDaniel, Linda Waggoner-Fountain Guest: Bruce Cohen

Agenda:

1. Discussion of Mind Brain Behavior System
   
   

   a.	First table was noted to have many errors percentages
   b.	Errors noted to be due to system’s inability to give “credit” to classes that are taught by more than one professor, has to do with alphabetical listing
   c.	Overall the students were pleased with the administration of the course
   d.	No personal emails were accepted by system leaders/faculty. Students were encouraged to use discussion board (email) and this was very successful
   e.	Overall the observers rank the course as 52% active learning activities. Only ¾ of activities were observed. Many of the non-observed activities were “active” such as labs and small group activities. The systems leaders noted that the class is about 60% active learning
   f.	In future evaluations there will be no observers so the students ranking will determine the amount of activity that is active
   g.	Student opinions discussed

   i.	Prefer neuroanatomy to be presented in class
   ii.	Prefer human behavior to be self directed learning
   iii.	Pre class materiel was not always covered in class
   iv.	For 2014 class there were 100 complaints about neuropathology, for 2015 there were 2 complaints (materiel was the same)
   v.	Systems leaders will consider changing order of content and which questions are on weekend formatives
   vi.	Most students (82%) felt the evaluations were just right.
   vii.	½-2/3 of class attended events.

   
   Dr. Nathan and Dr. Worden suggested that for the systems there be systematic review of the learning objectives by a generalist and clinical specialist in the field
   
   

   a.	This would provide input to make sure the content was important and the content level was appropriate for students in the first 18 months
   b.	Another discussion was that the quality of assessment should be evaluated

   i.	Suggestions would be that 15% of the questions be reviewed (Martindale’s group)
   ii.	An item for the review of a system should include the number of questions reviewed in advance and the number dropped from the formal summative evaluations.

              

Nancy McDaniel
Recorder of Minutes