Minutes 02.09.11

Minutes 02.09.11

Content Thread Leader’s Meeting

February 9, 2011



  1. LGBT Thread:  The new LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) thread within the Next Generation Curriculum is being handled by a group of medical students, including Michelle Samson (4th year), Armando Herradura (4th year), Drew Matz (2nd year) and Chad Lane (1st year).  Michelle Samson and Armando Herradura introduced the topic of how best to integrate this theme into the curriculum and stimulated a discussion of this subject.  They plan to coordinate with Fern Hauck, who is the Content Thread Leader for Cultural Competency.  It was suggested that they also coordinate with Megan Bray, who is both a System Leader for the endocrine/reproductive organ system as well as the Clerkship Director for Ob/Gyn.  Mary Kate Worden pointed out that the Mind, Brain and Behavior organ system will have LGBT Learning Objectives.  Chris Peterson pointed out that training is provided in taking a sexual history and that this is an opportunity to cover certain LGBT issues.

  2. Copyright issues, system web sites and the Xcredit database:  John Jackson has recently discussed with the Technology and Medical Education Committee and the Curriculum Committee certain changes that result from the need to adhere to copyright law; this has come out of discussions with Madelyn Wessel in the University Counsel’s Office, an expert in these matters.  Material on all of the Organ System web sites will be removed once each calendar year and archived to the new Xcredit curriculum management system that John and his staff have been developing.  Content Thread Leaders are encouraged to use the XCredit system to follow their Thread throughout the entire curriculum. We will ask John to make a presentation on these issues at a future meeting of the Content Thread Leaders Committee.

  3. Student Evaluations of Faculty:  The issue of student evaluations of the medical education activities of individual faculty and its relationship to Promotion and Tenure Committee review was discussed.  The P&T Committee desires faculty teaching evaluation information that includes quantitative data and a comparison group.  During the MCM course, it was not clear to faculty who was being evaluated by the medical students using the on-line faculty evaluation instrument nor was it clear how the individual faculty member could access his/her evaluation.  The current standing rule in the Next Generation Curriculum is that any faculty member who participates in four or more scheduled teaching activities is automatically evaluated but, upon request, any faculty member who needs student evaluations for Promotion and Tenure purposes can request that they be evaluated, even if they are participating in as little as one scheduled teaching session.  The evaluations are available on Oasis at:


    Evaluation template

    There is also a link to Oasis on the “The Faculty Source” page.  All faculty who teach in the medical curriculum are automatically assigned an Oasis password but are not sent the password.  When the faculty member goes to the Oasis log-in page, they can request their Oasis login password, which will then be e-mailed to them.  John Jackson is making a short video to show faculty how to navigate the Oasis site to find evaluations.  Roles for Content Thread Leaders include: 1. Identifying faculty who need student evaluations for P&T purposes, 2. Asking the appropriate System Leader(s) to have the medical students evaluate those faculty, 3. Inform the faculty that they are being or have been evaluated and 4. Show those faculty members how to access their evaluations on Oasis.  Bob Bloodgood demonstrated how to find faculty evaluations on Oasis.  John Jackson is preparing a video to show faculty how to do this.  Note that these evaluations now include comparison group data to all faculty teaching in the same organ system.

    The issue was raised as to whether faculty who are Content Thread Advisors could have access to the faculty evaluations on-line in order to assess their thread and/or retrieve the student evaluations as PDFs to deliver to their thread faculty.  This issue was not resolved.

    The evaluation leadership has given permission for the current on-line evaluation tool (used by medical students to evaluate faculty) to be reviewed by the current members of the P&T Committee to see if there are ideas for modifying it to be more useful  for the P&T evaluation process.  It was also pointed out that this tool should be evaluated by curriculum leaders in terms of maximizing its usefulness for evaluation of the new medical curriculum.

    In conjunction with this discussion of evaluation, two issues were raised about the overall evaluation of the new medical curriculum that is being conducted. 

    A.   Concern was expressed that many of the more active activities in the curriculum (lab sessions and other small group teaching activities held outside the large learning spaces in the new medical education building) are not being evaluated in the same way as teaching events occurring within the lecture hall and the learning studio. 

    B.  It was asked whether faculty could gain access to the evaluation data being collected by the trained observers as part of the systematic evaluation of the new medical curriculum.  Veronica Michaelsen indicated that these data are available on request by individual faculty members.  A Content Thread Leader who wants the data for events in his/her thread or an individual faculty member who wants the data for the session(s) in which he/she participated may e-mail the evaluation leaders (Elizabeth Bradley and Veronica Michaelsen) at:  someval@virginia.edu

  4. Action Items and Recommendations:   The group reviewed some of the “Action Items and Recommendations” that came out of the January 19, 2011 meeting of System Leaders.  This was distributed by e-mail to all Content Thread Leaders.  Item 1 on timely preparation of materials was discussed (see below).  Item 5 was highlighted: “Students should be informed about any SOM resources (handouts from previous years, other relevant materials) that are available, even if the System Leaders do not consider the resources to be well-targeted.  The first-year students become angry when they find these resources on their own (accusations of “hiding the materials from us,” etc.).”   Item 12 was again highlighted:  “Limit the number and duration of lectures”.

  5. Timely delivery of teaching and assessment materials:  During the on-going evaluation of the first round of the MCM within the new curriculum, it was noted that one of the biggest frustrations for the MCM System Leaders was getting timely delivery of learning objectives, handouts, assigned readings, instruction sheets and assessment questions (for self study quizzes, formative quizzes and summative exams) from the faculty teaching in MCM.  The Content Thread Leaders can play an important role in assisting System Leaders in all of the organs systems to obtain these materials in a timely manner.  The Content Thread Leaders can also play a useful role in collecting and pre-editing items like learning objectives and assessment questions from faculty in their thread.  Note that all assessment questions should be accompanied by feedback as well as links to specific learning objectives.

  6. Curriculum Enhancements:  It was pointed out that Addeane Caelleigh is maintaining an on-line list of “Possible Enhancements to the Pre-Clerkship” curriculum at:


  7. ADE Medical education research grants:  Content thread Leaders are reminded about this year’s ADE medical education grant competition.  This year, the process has been changed to include short (2 page) “medical education research” or” innovations in medical education” pre-proposals that are due by Monday, March 7th.   These pre-proposals will be reviewed and selected applicants will be chosen to submit a more detailed 8 page proposal. For additional information or a copy of the complete Call for Preproposals, contact Larry Merkel rlm3u@virginia.edu or Bob Bloodgood rab4m@virginia.edu


Robert Bloodgood