Credit Hours 7,
9 weeks duration,
Phase II, Year 3, Semester 5,
Started: 25 Shawal, 1434 H (1 September, 2013 G)
Ended: 11 Moharam, 1435 H (14 November, 2013 G)
Module Coordinator: Khaled Khalil
 This reported version of the module is that ran for the second time.
 First version was ran in academic year (1433 – 1434 H).
 Major changes from the previous version can be summarized as follow:
1433 – 1434 H
Content
Overall objectives
1434 – 1435 H
Remain the same regarding the number & phrasing
Themes
2
2
Lectures
69
75
Practicals
15
16
PBL
6
6
Seminars
9
4 (repetition was removed)
Case discussion
7
4 (repetition was removed)
Clinical skills
5
4 (moved to practical)
1433 – 1434 H
1434 – 1435 H
 All objectives of the first version were included
Detailed objectives
with exception of anaphylaxis (irrelevant).
 New detailed objectives were added in the new
lectures and practicals.
Methods
Assessment
Teaching Methods
Quizzes
The same
No
Yes (15 %)
Continuous
40 %
60 %
Final
60 %
40 %
Coverage of Planned Program
All planned program was carried out except the field visits
Justifications:
a) Visits were designed to specialized respiratory & CV centers which were
lacking in Majmaa.
b) Module was conducted at start of the academic year Thus, time was too narrow
to arrange. Meanwhile, the new mechanism settled by medical education was
not still activated.
c) Changes done in timetable due to vacations and some workshops made it
necessary to sacrifice visits as a time-consuming activity (objectives will be
covered later in clinical years)
Reason for Variations if there is a difference of more than 25% of the hours
planned: changes were less than 25 %
Effectiveness of Planned Teaching Strategies
Difficulty experienced by the students:
- Noncompliance on the time for teaching methods (more time for lectures while
time for others are not fully used).
- Noncompliance on the objectives designed for lectures.
- DSL & tutorials are not utilised as proposed.
- PBL conduction still faces some problems:
 Non coverage of all objectives in some PBL groups.
 Discrepancy in evaluation of the tutors (higher or lower).
 Non declaration of the evaluation to the students.
 Panel discussion role is now regressed or even neglected.
Suggestion:
1- Rules for attendance should be settled, approved, and declared to both students
and tutors. Regular follow-up by module and year coordinators is a must (already
done).
2- The time allocated for different activities (PBL, CD, Seminars) should be revised
by curriculum committee (1.5 hours instead of 2 hours may be sufficient).
3- Objectives for activities should be rephrased to be suitable for time allocated
4- Urging of the tutors to stick to the objectives designed for lectures. Follow-up by
coordinators and peers is a must. Preparation of exams should stick to the objectives
(not the given presentation). The tutors are required to map their questions in relation
to objectives (started in this module). Suggestions by the tutors for addition of new
objectives should considered in preparation of new module.
5- A well constructed objectives that are not repeated in other teaching methods
should be phrased for DSL. Follow-up by a nominated tutor is a must.
6- A professional detailed description of interactive tutorials should be approved by
curriculum committee.
7- Assignment of certain depth of knowledge in a well-detailed tutor guide for both
PBL, CD and seminars (started now in nervous module but still lacking for
seminars).
8- A rubric for evaluation of activities is present. But a detailed description for grades
of assessment (a role of medical education + quality center). system should be
formulated.
9- The evaluation should be followed by module coordinator. Thus, extremes of
evaluation (too high or too low) should be discussed with both tutors & students and
corrective actions should be taken when necessary.
10- Objectives intended in PBL should be disclosed to the students after session 2
and quiz by the coordinator in the panel discussion. Required content experts
should be invited for discussion with the students when needed.
Results
%
No
95-100 (A+)
0
90-94 (A)
1
85-89 (B+)
0
80-84 (B)
6
75-79 (C+)
4
Started: 48,
Passed: No 38 ( 79.1 % )
Denied Entry No: 0 ( 0 % )
%
No
70-74 (C)
2
65-69 (D+)
13
60-64 (D)
11
< 60 (F)
7
withdrawn: 4,
Failed: 7 (14.6% )
Resources and Facilities
- Lack for equipped pathology and biochemistry labs. Thus, most of their
practical sessions are using demonstrations instead of proper practical
activity.
Suggestion:
Pathology and biochemistry labs should be well equipped.
Administrative Issues
- This module being the first to be conducted in semester 5 is usually
coinciding many vacations that disturbs timetable.
- A new workshop for scientific research was not pre-pared & introduced in the
first week
Suggestion:
Slots for vacations and workshops should be considered. Changes in
timetable should be avoided.
Course Evaluation
Overall Student evaluation of the course
- Number of students sharing: 40 out of 44 set for exam.
- Timing of evaluation: after termination of activities 2 days before exam.
- Procedure: by student affairs.
Strength: % represent agree and strongly agree in the survey (above 65%)
 Basic outlines regarding knowledge & skills that module was designed
for developing was clear to me (100%).
 Requirements of successes in the module were clear to me (84%).
 Guiding module resources were clear to me (including office hours for
Faculty, references, etc) (77%).
 Module implementation & tasks that I was asked to do were matching
with basic outlines of the module (90%).
 Staff members were committed in perfectly delivering the module (77%). (e.g.
punctuality, continuous availability & appropriate preparation of educational
means).
 Staff members who deliver this module have proper grasping of all contents of
the module (81%).
 Amount of work in the module matches with allocated credit hours for the
module. (68%)
 Staff members were available for guide & help during office hours (97%).
 Staff members were enthusiastic for their tasks (87%).
 Module contents were up to date & useful. (Text books, study guides, references,
etc.) (77%).
 Resources were available for this module when needed (84%).
 Information technology utilization was effective for supporting me in the module
(65%).
 Asking questions & developing my special thoughts were encouraged in this
module (68%).
 I was encouraged to express my best in this module (65%).
 Tasks asked for me to do supported developing my knowledge & skills the
module aimed at instructing (65%).
 Link between this module & other modules in the curriculum was clear to me
(81%).
 What I have learned in this module is essential & will be utilized in the
future (97%).
 This module assisted me in improving my ability of thinking & problem
solving instead of just recalling information (90%).
 This module assisted me in improving my skills in team work (74%).
 This module assisted me in improving my effective communication (87%).
 I feel generally satisfied about standard of quality in this module (94%).
Criticism: % represent true sometimes, disagree and strongly disagree in
the survey (more than 40%)
 Correction of my assignments & assessments was fair & convenient (39%).
 Staff members were interested in my academic progress & were supportive
for me (42%).
 Marks for assignments & assessments were released to me within reasonable
time (42%).
Summary of the comments written by student on point 23, 24 and 25 of
course report
Strength:
 This module was so organized regarding the timing of the teaching activities in
relation to each other. There was neither repetition nor overlap. The related
teaching subjects were timely related.
 I feel generally satisfied about standard of quality in this module.
 Some tutors had excellent knowledge about the subject & Lectures by some
faculty arouse our interest and motivation.
Criticism:
Prepared by one student after discussion with all students.
 More activities and quizzes are concentrated mainly toward the end of the
module that overload the students before the exams
 Some of the questions of quizzes are beyond the objectives extracted in PBL.
 Time management of some doctors was extremely bad.
 Organisation of information in the presentation by some tutors was not good,
presentation was too much overloaded.
 Majority of lecturers didn’t summarize the lectures.
Response of instructor or course team to this evaluation:
 The quizzes should be spaced evenly during conduction of module. Scenarios
should be tailored to suit the time required to be filled.
 Revision of the quizzes by the module committee experts to ensure their coping
with module objectives.
 Tutors are instructed to ensure the coverage of all intended learning objectives
by the students in the activities.
 All the faculty members are instructed to follow the class timing strictly.
 Presentations will be orderly organized and will not be overloaded.
 Lecturers will be asked to summarize the lecture at the end.
 Other actions were mentioned before.
Other Evaluation
Major criticism mentioned by some tutors:
 The problem of PBL were solved in the scenarios. They need it as an open-end
case leaving the solution to be reached by the students.
 In some lecture (pathology & Biochemistry), time allocated is not enough to
cover the objectives.
Response of instructor or course team to this evaluation:
 The committee believed that PBL is learning by solving problems and not for
solving problems themselves. Lacking of some cues in PBL will force the tutor
to interfere to guide and may direct the students. PBL scenarios should be
revised by experts in this field to settle the dispute.
 Objectives of pathology & biochemistry lectures should be revised carefully.
Action Plan for Next Semester/Year
 A thorough revision of the contents of the module suggested by the subject
expert teachers.
 Clinical knowledge (objectives) should be reviewed by clinical experts. One
expert from internal medicine should be added to the module committee.
 PBL, CD and seminar tutor guide should be reviewed and full answer of the
intended questions and objectives should be included.
 Number of CDs should be increased to cope with the duration of the module.
 Topics should be rotated between CDs and PBLs.
 The pathology & biochemistry objectives should be revised for better timing.
 The field visit objectives should be revised to be achieved in outpatient clinics.
Otherwise, early arrangement for visits to centers outside Majmaa should be
considered.
 The changes in the schedule will be avoided maximally.
 PBL & CDs should be more timely arranged.
 A well constructed objectives that are not repeated in other teaching methods
should be phrased for DSL. Follow-up by a nominated tutor is a must.
 A professional detailed description of interactive tutorials should be approved
by curriculum committee.