Shield of the SOM Committee on Medical Education
Home || New || Search Net || Search SOM

Summary of 3-9-00 CME Minutes 

1. Role of the Electronic Curriculum – Dr. Tom Nosek

The purpose of Dr. Nosek’s presentation was to seek CME endorsement of the electronic curriculum and of the procedures relating to it. The "electronic curriculum" consists not solely of the electronic syllabus but encompasses everything we have in electronic format, such as our exam system. Dr. Nosek delineated the following 5 points for endorsement:

  1. The content of the Electronic Curriculum is the official syllabus for the medical curriculum.
  2. The Print Syllabus will be made from the Electronic Curriculum.
  3. The Electronic Curriculum will contain for every faculty/student interaction throughout the four-year curriculum
  1. The title of the interaction
  2. The name of the professor with a link to the professor’s home page if available
  3. The e-mail address of the professor
  4. A list of learning objectives for the interaction
  5. The resources that are needed for the student to achieve the learning objectives (either as original material, links to web-based resources, or references to other resources or exercises: ex. books, labs, small groups, etc.)
  1. In order to provide feedback to the students, faculty will provide for each interim exam question:
  1. A short descriptive phrase
  2. The location in the Electronic Curriculum where this topic was introduced
  1. The procedures described in the October 20, 1999 memo from Dr. Nosek re: "Electronic and Print Syllabus" will be the procedures used to create and update the Electronic Syllabus and to create the interim and first year comprehensive examination.

Dr. Nosek’s department has offered to create a web page for any faculty member lacking one. Just submit a photo and curriculum vitae. In addressing the first two points listed above, Dr. Nosek mentioned that we do not want two different syllabi. The intent is for the print syllabus to be created from the electronic curriculum. The "procedures" described in a separate memo that has been sent to all Year I and Year II subject committee chairs and participating faculty categorizes 1) What is needed from the faculty for the electronic and print syllabus, 2) What the Syllabus Office will do, and 3) What MD Labs will do. With the electronic curriculum already in existence, faculty need only give changes/modifications for each year and can concentrate on enhancing their existing files. Dr. Nosek is seeking endorsement from the various faculty constituents. He has found that communication with the faculty to be the biggest challenge. The electronic format enables getting out curriculum information to the faculty so as to eliminate redundancy. By clicking onto the electronic curriculum, faculty members can instantly locate what is covered in the lectures preceding and following theirs.

The following issue was raised: the student’s desire for a hard copy of the syllabus superior in quality to what is currently received when the material prepared for the electronic curriculum is printed out. Students need to study from a paper syllabus; they are not ready to rely solely on the electronic syllabus. Dr. Nosek reassured students that there is no move to eliminate the print syllabus. The intent is to always create a print syllabus. The goal is to attain "added value" via the electronic curriculum.

The digitized third year curriculum has taken its first step, as learning objectives from each core clerkship have been submitted. We are involved in a cumulative process to create a "seamless" electronic curriculum linking all years.

To be proficient in using electronic resources, a new pool of skills is needed. Endorsement of the electronic curriculum must take place before we can proceed with faculty development. In order to get optimum use from the electronic syllabus, students will need to be able to take their workbook computers into the lecture hall. Dr. Nosek approximated the cost of adapting the lecture halls at $300,000 per classroom.

Dr. Nosek will visit both the Curriculum Leadership Council and the Clinical Rotation Development Council and return to the CME with a report at a future time.

2. See Curriculum Revision Update

3. Revisitation of Alternative to Elective-Credit-for-Remediation Component of Curriculum Leadership Council Year II Proposal

The debated fifth point of the Curriculum Leadership Council’s Year II exam proposal was revisited, but agreement could not be reached. The CLC proposal states: Students remediating a Year II subject committee identification should be given credit, equivalent to one Type A elective, for their remediation effort. A handout was distributed with the following as an alternative to the elective-credit-for-remediation component: Students will not be permitted to take electives while they are remediating. However, students could get Type A elective credit for passing an approved graduate course as remediation, with the consent of the subject committee chair. Although it is already permissible to earn Type A elective credit for passing certain graduate courses that require exams and grades, some discussants opposed giving credit for remediation. Opinion was divided on whether to 1) require students to drop their electives during remediation, or 2) encourage students to drop their electives to focus on remediation, but ultimately leave it up to the individual student’s discretion to request permission to drop an elective.

See Curriculum Revision Update

Return to CME Home Page

This page was last updated on 3/22/00 by Eric Schmidt.

This website is maintained by the office of
Information Systems at the CWRU School of Medicine.