Minutes

Minutes were approved as read.

Announcements

Dean Williams announced that the Faculty Senate is addressing adding members to the Curriculum Committee.   By Senate by-laws the committee currently has five members from basic science departments and eight from clinical departments, with no more than one person per department.   Dean Williams is asking that the bylaws be changed to include two representatives from Medicine because the department is so large and plays such a significant role in the curriculum.   He is also asking that we elect two at-large members who would not count as members of any department. The process to change the bylaws was begun in the Faculty Senate last week and will take approximately six months.  

Dean Williams reminded committee member that regular attendance is important.   Missing up to three times a year is acceptable.   Missing three times in a row is a problem.

SubCommittee Reports

1. Directors of Didactic Courses                           R. Steigbigel

Minutes from the October meeting were distributed by email.   No further report.

2. Directors of Clinical Courses                             D. Tompkins

Minutes from the October meeting were distributed by email.   No further report.

3. Objectives & Assessment                                J. Chaves

Minutes from the October meeting were distributed by email.   No further report.

4. Examination Policy & Practice                         F. Miller

Minutes from the October meeting were distributed by email.   No further report.

Course Evaluations

The Reproductive System segment was evaluated by Latha Chandran and Van McCrary.   They expressed a concern that there were too many questions in the areas of IVF and male fertility.   Dr. Bronson disagrees suggesting there was a wide range of questions.   A discussion followed regarding test content matching course content and that perhaps questions might be more generalized and less specialized.   Dr. Bronson agreed.   Dr. McCrary commented that the clinical case conferences are working very well, as is the ethical and social component of the course.

Dr. Mylona suggested modes of evaluation might be added that assess competencies other than clinical knowledge, such as communication with patients.   Dr. Bronson said he is working on how to do that.

Mr. Rosenberg asked if board questions are considered in test writing.   Dr. Mylona is working with all faculty with that in mind.

Dr. O'Riordan asked if Dr. Bronson created a new test every year and a discussion followed about the prudence of distributing exam questions and answers.   Dr. Bronson said that he posts them, stating that they cannot be downloaded or copied and that students are under the Honor Code.

Dr. London asked if there was an effort to get lecturers together to integrate lectures and course content.   Dr. Bronson said he schedules a time for that, but not all can attend.

Old Business

New Business

Issue of Amounts of Reading Material Per Course

The shift to less time spent in class has led to some instructors assigning large amounts of reading outside of class.   Williams suggested that we need to set guidelines, either by numbers of pages or by hours.   The issue arose because the Neuro System segment assigned 120 electronic pages of Harrison 's for each day with no guidelines for students on determining relative importance. Dr. Coyle reduced the assignment to 50 web pages which she described as equivalent to 25 hard copy pages.   Ms. Ripton said the problem is not just the number of pages, but the content,.   Harrison 's is a great reference but has more pathology than she is ready for at this point.   Dr. Coyle said the neuro course is developing goals and objectives to go along with the reading.   Dr. Mylona asked if the objectives guide the evaluation as well.   Dr. Coyle said the questions are not solely from the objectives, that students can be asked questions from all of the reading, but that minutia will not be tested.   Dr. Jaffe said we are then asking students to make judgments about as to what will be tested.   Dean Schiavone suggested that residents and fellows all read Harrison 's, that the goals and objectives have to drive both the reading and the evaluation.

Ms. Ripton made a motion that questions on all examinations derive from the class and course objectives that appear in CBase.

No closure was reached on limits for out of class assignments.   Dean Williams noted that the biggest single LCME requirement is that the Curriculum Committee manage the curriculum.   This committee will need to make these decisions so the Dean's Office can enforce them.

Exam Guidelines

Dean Williams stated that we need guidelines regarding how many exam questions can be given per curricular hour.   The question arises out of the new block exam schedule and the issues related to block exams.   There needs to be balance in how many exam questions come from each course.   Dr. Wackett said that number of questions should not be the determining factor, as some questions require more information and processing time than others.   Dr. Viccellio asked if the defining issue is time or is the defining issue how exams are used and the purpose of exams.   Moshe reminded the group that the reason for block exams was to prevent students from missing class to prepare for exam an exam in another subject.   We still have an exam driven curriculum rather than a learner-centered curriculum. How can we make a better learning experience for our students?

Dr. Sussman pointed out that integration was another point of block exams and this it is too early to evaluate how that is working.   We need a predetermined formula for sampling questions and integrating topics to more efficiently test.   Dr. Eisenberg said integrated testing will improve as Course Directors get together and coordinate courses, but students have somehow misinterpreted that integrated questions cannot test details.   We need to continue to look for other ways to evaluate, not just by exams.

Motion passed unanimously.

Next Meeting

December 6, 2004