Meeting Summary February 9, 2000

1. Committee members present introduced themselves.
   Robin Luke, M.D.,. will replace Fred Samaha, M.D., after this meeting. Dr. Samaha was thanked for his contributions to the committee.

   Per-Olaf Hasselgren, M.D., Ph.D., has been unable to actively participate due to scheduling difficulties. A clinical faculty member replacement will be considered.

   The two student members, Brian Rothman and Kathryn Witzeman, will be graduating. Mr. Rothman will work with Ms. Witzeman to suggest possible replacements.

2. Moving a Mountain: Changing the clinical curriculum at State University scenario that Dr. Filak obtained from LuAnn Wilkerson, Ph.D., was utilized to stimulate discussion of the many issues and barriers relating to curricular change.

3. The Curriculum Renewal Task Force accepted a new name and a new charge: The Curriculum Review Task Force will establish an ongoing process of content review based on a discipline-based curriculum.

   The goal is no longer to implement a restructured preclinical biennium, but to focus on review of content. The Task Force will continue to focus on:

   • Integration
   • Student Centered Learning
   • Outcomes Analysis
   • Content Review

4. The Subcommittee on Structure and Content is renamed as the Subcommittee on Content. The Subcommittee's charge remains that as it was revised as of 3/5/99.

   To develop a strategy for short-term and long-term review of the content of the medical school curriculum within the context of discipline-based courses and departmentally based clerkships.

   The content review process must acknowledge a need for integration in several dimensions: within a course/clerkship; within a given academic year; within a developmental stage; and across all four years of the curriculum.

   The content review process must place a focus on the knowledge, skills and attitudes medical students will need to practice medicine in the 21st century.

   The content review process should acknowledge a need for the implementation of alternative teaching and learning methodologies, including the integration of information technology into the curriculum.

   The content review process must include an assessment of new concepts and skills that need to be incorporated into the curriculum in addition to assessment of what the current curriculum offerings are.

   A key question the Subcommittee needs to address is: What do we want to teach (the students to learn) and how is it best to teach it (to facilitate student learning)?

   The Subcommittee on Content has reaffirmed the decision to focus on initial content review on the topic of medical student education in human genetics. A task force to review the human genetics longitudinal curriculum will be established. The plan would be to receive recommendations in the Fall of 2000 for discussion that could lead to changes in the curriculum for the 2001-02 academic year.

5. The Subcommittee on Evaluation and Assessment has accepted the charge as revised on 3/5/99.

   To review the current system of evaluation for Year I and Year II courses and recommend changes for improvement.

   To review the current grading and examination policies and to make recommendations with respect to standardization. All recommendations must be made within the framework of a grading system that has at a minimum Honors, Pass, and Fail categories.

   To make recommendations regarding creation of an Honors or similar award of distinction that would be granted with the Doctor of Medicine degree.

   An initial focus will be to address the concept of a degree with honors or distinction.

   A second focus will be to review the current distribution of grades in each category (H, P, F) and recommend whether a set of guidelines or standards should be adopted that fosters greater consistency across the curriculum.

Submitted by:

Andrew T. Filak, Jr., M.D.
Chair