Minutes 10/27/10

Minutes 10/27/10

Content Thread Leaders Committee Minutes
10/27/10

  1. Don Innes suggested that the Content Thread Leaders get together a couple of times each semester.  We will try to schedule two fall and two spring meetings; additional meetings only if needed.

  2. In order for Content Thread Leaders to be informed of relevant issues that are dealt with at the  System Leaders monthly meeting, it was suggested that the Content Thread Leaders be sent the minutes of the System Leaders’ monthly meeting.

  3. There was a discussion about how Content Thread Leaders can be informed about the status of  the plans for the upcoming organ system units in the curriculum.  It was agreed that Darci Lieb will contact leaders of all of the Systems to request a current draft of the system schedule, bundle these together into one PDF and send to all of the Content thread Leaders and System Leaders.

  4. Don Innes indicated that Content Thread Leaders needed to track their content thread through the various Organ Systems. Thread Leaders should each develop an outline or map of their thread through the four years of medical school with particular emphasis on the first 18   months.

  5. The issue of medical student teaching electives was discussed.  Meg Keeley, the elective program supervisor, has eliminated the former course-based medical student teaching  electives and has replaced them with teaching electives for the organ systems.  Veronica Michaelsen and Don Innes have developed a more formal pedagogical component for the teaching electives and will meet with medical students desiring to do teaching electives.  http://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/handbook/electives/medEdTeach/curriculumdesign.cfm

  6. A discussion of the role of Content Thread Leaders within a System was discussed.  It particular, it was discussed whether it was desirable to have System Leaders work through Content Thread Leaders or to work directly with the individual faculty delivering content or a  combination of both.  For MCB, Selina Noramly indicated that she had used examples of both,  but emphasized that she would not have been able to get the job in MCM done if she had not utilized Content Thread Leaders to help collect from the faculty in their content areas items such as Learning Objectives, Instruction Sheets, handouts, readings, quiz questions and assessment questions.  Don Innes indicated that it would be up to the System Leaders to  decide how they would proceed in this regard.

  7. Don Innes discussed some input he received from a meeting with medical students from the Class of 2014.  In particular, he mentioned that students expressed concerns about instances where Learning Objectives did not correlate with what was occurring in class.  Selina Noramly  cited some examples where content delivered in class (and the associated exam questions) were not represented by Learning Objectives.  This is an easy fix, requiring only that LOs be   added for this material.

  8. The issue of how to peer review assessment content was discussed.  Don indicated that an exam review committee has been set up and will be utilized for future systems (although not  for MCM and perhaps not for Microbes).  It was pointed out that Content Thread Leaders did serve to peer review assessment questions in their areas in MCM.  This could be continued, in  addition to the exam review committee.

  9. Don Innes indicated the need to increase the percentage of assessment questions that are in   the USMLE clinical vignette or experimental vignette format.   He indicated that MCM did not  reach the target of 50% or more for this.

  10. A brief discussion was held about how Organ Systems would review material from previous organ systems. There needs to be some system established for how System Leaders will obtain exam questions covering content from previous systems.  Would they seek these from System    Leaders or Content Thread Leaders?  Don Innes suggested that System Leaders think about collecting questions that could be used by later systems. Or could the review consist of retesting with the exact same questions (as a means of monitoring retention, as is done with    USMLE exams).  No decisions were made.

  11. A question was raised at the end of the meeting about how much out-of-class preparation for each hour of scheduled time the students can handle.  Have the students in MCM been able to handle the level of readings (and other preparative materials) that they have been assigned?   What percentage of the class actually read the assigned book chapters?  This is something for  which data might be gathered by the curriculum evaluation team.

Bob Bloodgood