| 1.
Course evaluation of Nutrition
(M. McNurlan & J. Sorrento-co-directors)-
by
C. Belling & J. Bock
Ø This course will be changing significantly
during the current 2003-04 academic year. Dr. McNurlan has
been the course director since the inception of the course
in 1998. Dr. Sorrento has joined Dr. McNurlan as co-director
this year. This review is based on how Nutrition was offered
to the students in 2002-03.
Ø
Students expressed anxiety about
the wide range of objectives combined with a lack of clarity
as to how they will achieve them in such a short period of
time.
Ø The course will not be run over
a single block, but instead consist of three parts:
·
Five introductory lectures in the first semester of the first year.
·
Five lectures as part of Physiology in the second semester of the first
year.
·
Lectures and two small group sessions integrated throughout the second
year courses. The final exam will be taken in the spring
of second year, and nutrition questions will also be included
in other courses where relevant. Some of the nutrition questions
will be included in the Physiology final exam in the first
year.
Ø
Students’ performance assessment
will be changing for the coming year. They’re no longer including
a paper and presentation on nutrition to the class. This
was too consuming for the students.
Changes
in the course:
Ø
Placing of the majority of the
course after the first half of first year will, it is hoped
, and the focus in the first part on introductory matters,
is likely to remedy the not well coordinated with the students
level of knowledge.
Ø
The newly expanded course, integrated
with physiology and with second-year courses, allows more
time for faculty to teach, and students to master, this important
material.
Ø
The director’s intended change
for the coming year involves reducing the number of guest
lecturers in the hope that this will lead to a greater sense
among the students of control and coherence.
Ø
Peter Williams thanked Margaret
McNurlan for a wonderful job that she has done as the course
director over the last four years.
2.
Course evaluation of Pathology (H. Fleit-director)-by P. Viccellio
& M. McNurlan
Ø
This course was recently taken
over by Dr. Howard Fleit. He replaced Dr. Fred Miller the
previous course director. The review of Pathology is based
on the primarily on the 2003 course.
Ø
Pathology is taught in the second
semester of the first year. The General Pathology course
is taught in lecture, small group, and lab format. The course
examinations include a midterm and final exam on the lecture
materials, a gross practical exam, and a microscopic exam.
Ø
Students attend 6 Clinical Pathologic
Conferences (CPCs) throughout the course. These are small
groups of students who meet with a faculty member who illustrates
clinical context through a case-based format.
Ø
The course seems well-organized
and is highly rated by the students.
Ø
Attendance is mandatory in the
small group sessions for both lecture-based interactive sessions
and CPCs. In the seven interactive sessions, attendance and
participation counts for 10% of the grade. Students with
an excused absence in CPC will be given an alternate assignment.
The material in CPC is not covered on the exam, but attendance
and participation form part of the Cbase evaluation of the
student.
Ø
Pathology and Physiology overlap
for the first 6-7 weeks with the students neglecting Pathology.
The students have their first midterm in May and really don’t
know how they are doing in the course until that time. The
reminder of the course is covered by an examination in June.
A block format may address the problem for students having
difficulty and don’t know it until they take their midterm
in May. Adding an additional exam may help the situation.
Each exam only covers the material up to that point. There
is no cumulative final exam at the end of the course.
Course Evaluations-
Ø
The students found the transition
of course directors occurred smoothly.
Ø
Most of the faculty received high
marks from the students.
Ø
The course organization, syllabus,
grading policy, locations of recommended reading, prompt return
of exams were all rated as excellent.
Ø
The projection of lab images seen
to be a problem. There should be greater uniformity among
the lab instructors.
Ø
The administration of the Ezexam
was a problem and this lead to stress among the students.
Suggestions
for Improvements-
Ø
Possibly adding in a third exam
may encourage the students to concentrate on Pathology earlier.
Ø
Allow all students access to the
same CPCs would expand this meaningful experience and allow
the information to be included on exams.
Ø
If histopathology images were
computer-based self-learning, the students could process the
material on their own time.
Ø
The students appreciated review
sessions and tutorials. If there were an addition of three
teaching assistants (MD-PhD students or 2nd year
students) the sessions would be smaller and more helpful for
the students.
Ø
Dr. Fleit has noted the students
cramming because of the overlapping of Physiology and Pathology.
Stronger integration of the material of the first year, perhaps
as blocks might discourage a compartmented approach. Cumulative
examinations might facilitate greater retention of learned
information.
Ø
The basic science material is
offered in the first year, were the clinical applications
in the systems course is taught in the second year. Since
the students appreciate the CPC, restructuring of the curriculum
to include more clinically relevant information in the first
year might be considered.
Ø
Dr. Fleit said that efforts are
underway to increase the amount of computer assisted instruction.
They are planning to develop a web-page for the course through
which links to course related materials can be obtained.
Also, they plan to increase the amount of electronic resources
of material for the course such as digital annotated histopathology
images. Preparation of CDs with these images would allow
the students to learn the material independently. Then they
would use the faculty as a resource for guidance. |
