System Leaders Minutes 06/09/10

System Leaders Minutes 06/09/10

University of Virginia School of Medicine
Systems Leadership Community
Minutes – 06.09.2010


Health Sciences Library Room 1212 (Mock Learning Studio), 4:00 p.m.

Present (underlined) were: Brian Behm, Alan Binder, Robert Bloodgood, Megan Bray,
Chris Burns, Heather Burns, Mary Bryant, Troy Buer, Bobby Chhabra, Pam Clark, Bruce Cohen,  Eugene Corbett, Alan Dalkin, John Dent, Don Innes, Kambiz Kalantarinia, Stuart Lowson, Jen Marks, Melanie McCollum, Mo Nadkarni, Bart Nathan, Selina NoramlyChris Peterson, Mitch Rosner, Mark Russell, Neeral Shah, Allan Simpson, Jonathan Truwit, Linda Wagoner-Fountain, Mary Kate Worden, Zhen Yan, Elizabeth Bradley, Addeane Caelleigh,  Terri Ellison, John Jackson, Karen Knight, Darci Lieb, Jim Martindale, Veronica Michaelsen, Sue Pollart, Lisa Herrman, Brad Bradenham, Andrew Pfeffer, Jason Woods
Convenor:  Don Innes


  1. Textbooks for the new curriculum. Karen Knight announced that the library has brought unlimited access to both Cecil Medicine and Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine.  Don Innes emphasized that the faculty should use the text(s) they prefer, although they should try to use ones with full online access.  In they want to use only one or two chapters of a book that won’t be used by others, they should consider ordering a course pack for those chapters.  Darcy Lieb distributed copies of the order forms for course packs and noted that the course packs are prepared only at the Copy Center in Alderman Library, require a minimum three-month lead time, and that the students buy them at the University Bookstore.  The cost is usually $.15 per page.

    A final version of the textbook list will be distributed as soon as a biochemistry and a genetics text are identified.

    In a related discussion of handouts, Don Innes stated that handouts will not be distributed as in the present curriculum; instead, class handouts are to be put online and the student can decide whether to print them out.  Also, students are to bring their laptops to class and so can access online content as needed. 

  2. Equipment capabilities of the new Learning Studio and Auditorium in the new building. The Learning Studio will have greater capabilities than present auditoriums:   five projector screens (~20 ft. wide); lectern in the center of the room, set up for PC and Mac; two window coverings (a scrim, with 10% block; and a shade that provides complete darkening); video camera that can project images onto the screens (ex., to display a model of a skull); four 6-ft. white boards, one of which is a smart board that will be recorded; capability of showing different images on different screens (although only one will be recorded); tables wired for laptops, with the capability of showing the laptop images on the screens, and with microphones so that students speaking from the tables can be heard around the room (the mics are recorded).  The Lecture Hall has one screen and one projector; the tables do not have mics because the acoustics do not make them necessary.  All the operations and equipment are the same in each room so that faculty need to learn only one system.

    The building has a lobby announcement system (sound and lights) that will alert students when classes are ready to reconvene.

    Classroom support technicians will be on site; one staff member has an office outside the auditorium.  Staff will not be available the whole time at any one room because they must cover five auditoriums/teaching spaces in three different buildings, but they will be available.

    Training sessions on the new spaces will be organized throughout the coming year so that faculty can learn the new equipment near the time they will begin teaching.  The top priority now is for C2S, MCM and CPD.  There will be little time for training in July for the faculty who teach in the early weeks of MCM because the staff will be learning the system in July.  As much training as possible will be given to these faculty.

  3. “Credit” for different types of teaching activity.  A main goal of the new curriculum to engage the student in active-learning activities in which the student applies, analyzes, or evaluations information and in which the students are interacting both with the materials and with others in a way that generates feedback to peers or the instructor.  Among the examples of such activities are clicker assessment with discussion, problem sets, think-pair-share.  Greater “teaching credit” will be given for these “engagement sessions” than for lectures.  To be consider an “engagement session,” these active-learning activities must take up 40% or more of the session time.  Credit for a lecture will be one hour for each hour of instruction and X hours of preparation; for an engagement session, the credit will be one hour for each hour of instruction and X hours of preparation.  

    There was a question about how the distinction was being applied to panel discussions, and Don Innes commented that the credit system will need to be applied for the first iteration of the new curriculum and then analyzed and adjusted as needed based on that experience.

  4. Integration of Threads into the Systems.  Don Innes reminded the System Leaders to keep Thread Leaders and Thread faculty informed.  Some Thread Leaders and faculty in general are asking when they will learn what they will be doing in the new curriculum.  Communicate early with faculty that you think will be doing the teaching, and keep them as informed as possible. 

  5. Guidelines for evaluation and grading.  Formative assessment should be at least 25% of the grade in the first year of the new curriculum; this percentage may be increased in successive years (perhaps as high as 40-50%).  Also, the amount should be reasonably consistent system to system.  There was a short discussion of the difficulty of finding the balance between formative and summative assessment and about not wanting the formative assessments to be too easy.

  6. Survey about frequency of student feedback.  Veronica Michaelsen distributed a print survey asking for feedback on how often students should complete weekly evaluations, on where to add System-specific questions, and student feedback in general.  The survey had previously been sent by email.  Faculty are asked to complete either the paper or the email version

  7.   CV leaders will discuss their plans.  At a future meeting, the leaders of the CV System will discuss the general template they are developing to organize each day’s time.    

  8. Handouts distributed.  Textbook list; “Engagement sessions” (definitions and examples; “pyramid” of Bloom’s taxonomy); Thoughts about activities in the new curriculum (Innes & Michaelsen); UME Allocation model for clinical departments, 2010-2011; one-page chart of curriculum weeks (with week no., starting date, system being taught); print copy of survey of student feedback.

  9. Next meeting.  The next meeting will be on July 14, 4:00 p.m.    Note:  this meeting will likely be cancelled because many members will be away in July.  What items would you like to have addressed at future meetings? Send me an email at