Curriculum Revision Update - May 27, 1999

1. Dr. Tom Nosek gave a presentation on video streaming of lectures. Dr. Nosek began by projecting an electronic syllabus page showing all the available multimedia features, links to electronic resources, and the philosophy behind its construction. Dr. Nosek explained the faculty’s two main responsibilities with regard to the electronic curriculum: 1)Writing learning objectives, and 2) Providing resources to enable the student to achieve each specific objective. Dr. Nosek enumerated the possible electronic resources—among them original material created by the faculty members. Ms. Aisha Bhatti of the Department of Biomedical Technologies is a medical illustrator. Faculty can work with her and students from the Cleveland Institute of Art to create original multimedia features. Ms. Bhatti can be reached at 368-6953 or at aab9@po.cwru.edu.

Video streaming broadcasts live over the Web. This form of distance learning enables you to attend a lecture while it is being presented via computer from any place that affords access to the Web. The presentation happens live, and it is then archived for anyone who wants to see it later. Advantages of video streaming include: 1) the student’s option to catch the presentation when it’s happening or to view it later at his/her leisure, 2) including the lecture as preparation in the archive and using that freed-up contact hour for interactive discussion, 3) a faculty development tool permitting the lecturer to critique his/her teaching, 4) a mechanism permitting a senior faculty member to observe all the lectures of his/her faculty to better evaluate teaching faculty.

Discussants emphasized the need to bring faculty into the discussion of video streaming, because it represents a significant change from the way we have been doing things. Faculty need to understand that video streaming is not intended to replace them. There is a need for faculty development. Should videotaped lectures become the main means of disseminating information, faculty would subsequently need to change how they make use of classroom time. It was suggested starting with a pilot project that would involve a few faculty interested in video streaming.

Dr. Nosek pointed out that CWRU is extremely fortunate in that we already have the infrastructure in place. CWRU students have notebook computers with Internet access at their desks. Dr. Nosek estimated the cost of video streaming for the first year to be $47,000. In subsequent years, the cost would be approximately $30,000/year. Everything could be live and archived for student use.

Discussants expressed concern over the passive nature of the lecture format. Students would be hard-pressed to come up with the time to watch four hours of video in preparation for the next day’s discussion. In addition, this would not allow much time to do preliminary reading in preparation. If misused, this technique could be too "narrow." However, video streaming does provide a great way to review.

2. Dr. David Katz came before the CME seeking its recommendation of the Year One and Two revised curriculum proposal so that it could proceed to the Faculty Council. The restructuring of the curriculum was designed by a consensus process of the Curriculum Leadership Council, composed of section leaders, subject committee chairs, and CPDP and Clinical Science directors. CPDP and Clinical Science have merged to form the Integrated Clinical Experience (ICE). Any ICE clinical presentation will be coordinated with the concurrent subject committee. There is some re-sequencing of topics: 1) Year One will deal with the normal structure and function of all organ systems, and 2) Year Two will allow the student to revisit each of the organ systems to study the pathophysiology. As there are no longer Saturday classes, the 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. blocks on Wednesday and Friday have been designated for labs. Histology/Gross Anatomy will be graded as a separate unit, and the students will be held accountable for achieving a passing exam score. The anatomy faculty will now have total responsibility for examining their material. Dr. Katz presented an overview of Year One topics. Dr. Katz also showed an overview of Year Two that would go into effect in 2001. (Year Two for the 1999-2000 academic year remains unchanged.) The Year Two schedule is still tentative.

Dr. Resnick moved that the CME support Dr. Katz’s recommendations for the revised Year One and Year Two curriculum. Dr. Greenfield seconded the motion. The motion passed: 4 in favor, 0 opposed. It was noted for the record that absent CME members Dr. Mieyal and Dr. Dubyak are both members of the Curriculum Leadership Council.

The revised Year One and Year Two curriculum can now proceed to the Faculty Council.

Several vertical themes have emerged as an integral part of the new curriculum. Now that we have a structure, the CME’s next major action for the coming academic year might be weaving the vertical themes into the curriculum.

Listing of Past Updates

Return to CME Home Page