University of Virginia School of Medicine
Principles of Medicine Committee
- Amy Bouton (Microbiology) presented the Academy of Distinguished Educators ' faculty peer evaluation of teaching pilot project.
The purpose of the pilot project was to develop and validate mechanisms for peer review of teaching in three teaching venues within the SOM. The venues that were used for this pilot study were as follows:
A. Clinical ward teaching: Department of Pediatric in-patient wards B. Basic science class: Medical Microbiology (mycology/virology unit) C. Graduate student class: Molecular Basis of Cardiogenesis
Goals for peer review of teaching within the SOM include:
A. Improvement of faculty teaching. B. Provide a standardized mechanism for peer-evaluation of teaching that can be used in the promotion and tenure evaluation process C. Serve as an evaluative factor for admission into the SOM Academy of Distinguished Educators. D. Improve collegiality and faculty interactions
The challenges: The development of a SOM- wide mechanism for peer review of teaching faces several challenges:
A. Because the breadth of teaching venues within the SOM is so large and varied, evaluation mechanisms need to be developed that are sufficiently flexible to address the unique features and challenges of any given venue. B. The evaluation mechanisms must be validated with respect to reproducibility and utility C. Issues to think about include cost, time, burden to Chairs
Problems and Issues:
A. Rigorous peer-evaluation of teaching, at least to the extent utilized in the Pilot Project, turned out to be very time consuming. It is impractical to envision expanding this model to all faculty on a regular basis. B. It may be necessary to scale back the peer evaluation process. Perhaps internal course faculty could be utilized for peer-evaluation of faculty teaching, as has been done in the Gross Anatomy and CTS courses for many years. ? C. If peer-evaluation of the teaching of an individual faculty member can not be done on a regular basis, when would be the optimum time to do so. The timing may differ with the goal that is to be achieved. In order to help new faculty become excellent teachers, it may be best to perform peer evaluation soon after a new faculty member begins teaching in the medical curriculum. If the goal is to obtain data for the P&T process, it might be best to do peer evaluation of teaching just before a faculty member is to be reviewed for P&T.
- Evaluation of the web forms used for medical student evaluation of courses and instructors. The group examined the two web templates used for course evaluation and faculty evaluation . While a number of changes were suggested and discussed, the committee reached a consenus only on the following changes:
A. Remove the use of the terms “greatest” from questions 11. and 12. on the course evaluation form and from question 9. on the faculty evaluation form. B. Develop a mechanism for linking a photograph of the faculty member being reviewed to the faculty evaluation form to help medical student recollect which faculty were involved with which teaching activities. C. Bob Bloodgood will work with John Jackson to make these changes.
- David Lunardini (1st year medical student rep) requested that the Principles of Medicine Committee consider a change to the 1st year final exam schedule that would end the exams by Friday, May 27th instead of the current Monday, May 30th (Memorial Day).
Classes until Noon
Classes until Noon
Human Behav Exam
The top schedule is the currently planned exam schedule.
The bottom schedule is the newly proposed schedule.
Monday, 5/30/05 , is Memorial Day
Neuroscience is the only exam that is cumulative
The new scheme reduces the total study time for exams
The new scheme starts the summer Holiday 3 days earlier
It was decided that the entire 1st year medical class would be presented with the proposed changes. Any student objecting to this change will be asked to e-mail Bob Bloodgood, who will tally the objectives. If there is significant objections from the class, this change in exam schedule will not be made.
- Department level presentations on the new medical curriculum:
Dr. Richard Pearson & Dr. Don Innes are asking that all members of the Principles of Medicine Committee arrange to make a presentation to their respective departments on the new medical curriculum. They are suggesting that a representative of the curriculum committee (such as Don Innes or Dick Pearson or Bob Bloodgood or Eve Bargmann) be invited to be present at each departmental meeting.
- Update on the Medical Education Building : The medical education building has been put on the fast track; it is hoped that an architect might be picked during the Fall of 2005 and that construction can be started by 2007. The budget has been increased from $25 million to $30 million. The medical alumni have pledged $3 million towards the building. A 6th floor will be added to the design but may not be finished. A project manager, Tom Snow, has been assigned to the project. It was decided that 2 large group teaching spaces (each capable of housing a class of 160 students) will be designed into the building.
The next meeting of the Principles of Medicine Committee will be held on April 13, 2005 .