|
||||
|
||||
 |
Curriculum Revision Update - May 13, 19991. Dr. David Katz provided an update on the progress of the Curriculum Leadership Council. The Year One curriculum is essentially complete. The following components still need work:
The Curriculum Leadership Council as a whole (pertaining to issues that cut across years one and two) is now focusing on matters related to the quality of teaching. There is strong support among Council members for a reduction in the number of faculty involved in the core curriculum as a means of eliminating the far too many "cameo appearances." The Council is also interested in evaluating the quality of teaching. The Council favored obtaining a professional package or kit with an objective measure of the quality of teaching. The evaluative tool could be a form with a protocol as to who fills out what. The professional tool would have to be modified to accommodate specific CWRU needs. A possible collaboration between the Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure and the CME regarding the responsibility for the choice of a teaching evaluation instrument was mentioned. The Year Two schedule is the next major task of the Curriculum Leadership Council. The five-day week parameter, vertical themes, integration between the Integrated Clinical Experience and the subject committees, and introduction to the clerkships need to be taken into consideration when planning Year Two. The year two student representative requested beginning Year Three earlier, since the USMLE Step 1 will be taken earlier. 2. Dr. Marjorie Greenfield provided a brief update on Year Three beginning in the summer of 2000. She and Dr. Christie Zakariasen are currently interviewing department chairs and education leaders for their input. A tentative retreat date of September 24, 1999 has been set where they will share their feedback. 3. Dr. Tom Nosek provided a biomedical information technologies update. He has recommended as the computer purchase for next year’s entering class the IBM ThinkPad 390E. It runs on Windows 98 and has a bigger hard drive than the computer currently used. Its basic unit sells for $1550. Anyone on campus who is interested has the option to purchase this computer. Depending on upgrades, the unit costs between $1,550 and $1,944.25. This is $300-400 less here than you could find elsewhere. Dr. Nosek discussed the policy for notebook computers. When students leave the medical school program—either as a leave of absence or for the M.S.T.P.—they must return the computer. When they return to the medical school program, they will receive the computer model of the class to which they then belong. Discussants expressed concern about the M.S.T.P. students, who usually leave the School of Medicine program after year two to pursue their Ph.D. for about four to five years. Since computer models are only useful for up to four years, M.S.T.P. students would need two computers. Dr. Nosek has to anticipate future needs and buy more than enough computers when placing the initial order. Dean Berger was not in favor of buying two computers. Dr. Nosek provided an update on computerized testing in our curriculum. Computerized testing has been done with Dr. Greenfield’s OB/GYN core clerkship three times. A limited number of students (20-24) in one place have been involved. The year two class was presented with the option of taking an online Mechanisms of Infection interim exam on Tuesday, May 18, as a response to the student request for an exam that would simulate the online USMLE Step 1. Fifty-four students signed up to take advantage of the experience. The software has been installed on these students’ computers, and the computers have been checked out to make sure that they are functioning properly. The online interim is to be given over the network. Students will take exactly the same test as the pencil and paper exam. Dr. Nosek concluded with the dilemma of the electronic syllabus and the print syllabus. The electronic syllabus is the official syllabus. The print syllabus is made from the electronic syllabus; it is an exact copy. The choice has been made to optimize the electronic syllabus rather than the print syllabus. Easy online modification eliminates the annual chore of re-creation of the syllabus. We have links to free Internet Web sites. We will also have $40,000 worth of licensing agreements next year for electronic resources. Certain items are available only in the electronic version of the syllabus. However, our students are not ready to transfer from the print syllabus to the electronic syllabus exclusively. We are facing the problem of how to transition our students to the electronic syllabus. We are investing $40,000 in licensing agreements to enhance the electronic syllabus. It is costing us $60,000 to print out the print syllabus. This coming year’s budget for these resources is lower than last year’s. We cannot afford both the projected costs of licensing agreements and printing the syllabus. We are faced with a problem of economic exigency further complicated by the situation that students are not ready to make the move to the electronic syllabus. Dr. Nosek suggested charging students for the print syllabus. The class could be polled and those students wanting the print syllabus would only be charged for the cost of printing. The estimated cost per student would be no more than $200/year; $60,000 divided by 300 (combined total of year one and year two students). Dr. Nosek mentioned that we are the only school at CWRU providing a print syllabus at no charge to the students. Strong reaction among student representatives and other CME discussants followed. There was significant opposition to 1) making this a financial issue, and 2) trying to force people to change lifelong study habits of relying on books and taking notes in the margins of the print syllabus. Physical plant facilities were found lacking in that the lecture hall does not have adequate tabletops for the laptops. Some alternatives were mentioned for consideration.
|
||
