CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING February 6, 2012
MINUTES
FEB. 6, 2012
CHAIRMAN
Dr. Kenneth Kaushansky
RECORDING
SECRETARY
J. Kowalewski
MINUTES
January 9th 2012 minutes approved.
OVP CONFERENCE ROOM - LEVEL 4
Curriculum Review Working Group: Year Four Proposal – Dr. Chandran
Dr. Chandran gave a brief background as to why the year 4 curriculum is being changed. A primary reason for change is
that 4th year students have complained that the 4 th year has not been helpful in preparing them for residency. A list of
current and proposed changes was distributed to the committee. The following proposed changes were discussed with
issues of concerns raised by members and students alike:


ANNOUNCEMENTS

To move sub-internship to begin in June of year three since MSPE letters will be sent out a month earlier than
previously. There will be no required course work in November-December so they can devote the time for
interviews. One committee member voiced a concern that changing the sub -I to June in year 3 might be difficult for
some clerkships. Students will have to complete their core clerkships before taking the subinternship.
To require 4 weeks of Neuro in Year 3: students wanted this to be a flexible option instead of a requirement ,
thereby giving students 4 more extra weeks of elective time in which to do something else they are interested in.
They also requested to have additional choices of electives in year 3.
ACE and TTR – be made flexible instead of requirements. This would give students who have done clinical research
and publications in their 4th year exemption from the ACE and/or TTR courses upon the approval of a dean after
submission for review based on a written set of criteria. The exemption of MSTP students was also raised. Since
MSTP students have a short track to residency (less than one year of clinical training), the issue of coming back and
getting acclimated to clinical work needs further looking into.
A motion to pass the 4 th year curriculum changes was approved by the Curriculum Committee with the following
asterisks :
 To hold on moving all Sub-I to late May-June block.
 To make Neurology flexible in the 3 rd and 4th year.
 To make ACE/TTR or both exempt for students that demonstrated deep educational/clinical research upon the
discretion and approval of a dean
SUB-COMMITTEE
REPORTS
1. Directors of 1st & 2nd Year Courses
Roger Cameron, PhD
2. Directors of Clinical Courses
Susan Lane, MD
CCD discussed the 4th year curriculum changes proposal in its last meeting.
3. Objectives & Assessment
O:\Acaaf\Committees\Curriculum’Meetings\2008-09\0809\currcomm minutes.doc
Sidonie Morrison, PhD
4. Systems Committee


Paul Richman, MD
Pass/fail discussion
Lack of attendance – the committee is trying to address this issue as to what the problems are. Students suggested
using teaching assistants for improvement. Suggestion to make students to desire to attend classes were: make
classes align more for Step 1 preparation. Another suggestion was to teach students to prepare for clerkships. The
discussion is still ongoing.
5. Competency


Latha Chandra/Mary Kritzer
Curriculum Gap Analysis- Dr. Chandran
Assurance of Learning Table– Dr. Kritzer
Dr. Chandran gave a brief report of the gap analysis required by the LCME for periodical checks. A table handout of the
summation of each course and the corresponding ILO was distributed to the committee members. She talked about the areas of
weakness in coverage and areas of weakness in assessment. Are all the ILOs being covered and the objectives met in these
courses. This will be re-discussed in April with a remediation plan.
COURSE
EVALUATIONS
none
AGENDA TOPICS
(NEW BUSINES)
Student Views on Attending Teaching- Dr. Susan Lane
Several sources of information (C-Base clerkship evaluations, anecdotal information) suggest that SBU’s learning
experiences and environment on a number of services is not what it should be. Furthermore an increased number of 2nd
years are requesting Winthrop as a clinical campus. The educational learning environment should be at the same high
levels across all sites.
Dr. Lane gave a report on student views of attending teaching. No formal study has been done of this issue, nor has any
data been collected from faculty or Course Directors. The data was based on the clerkship evaluations that students do
after the end of each clerkship; student mistreatment reports; and anecdotal comments from students. The form has several
questions including whether the learning environment conveyed collaboration, respect and integrity; evaluation methods
were clear/consistent/and fair; course was well structured; course director was responsive to the students’ need s etc.
TOPIC
Some of the findings were:
1. The inpatient rotations at SBUH (with the exception of Peds and EM) has a higher proportion of students who
strongly disagreed with the following:
 Teaching methods were appropriate for stated objectives;
 Evaluation methods were clear
 Evaluation methods were applied consistently and fairly
 Overall this course was well-structured
 Received timely feedback on performance
 Course director is responsive to students’ needs and concerns
 The learning environment conveyed values of collaboration, respect, and integrity
 Overall I am very satisfied with this course
O:\Acaaf\Committees\Curriculum’Meetings\2008-09\0809\currcomm minutes.doc
2. Responses to open-ended questions revealed 2 major themes: issues concerning teaching by residents and
attendings and the organization/structure of the clerkships. A common theme was poor communication or lack of
communication between sites; poor communication between students and course directors; not enough
communication re: lecture days and written assignments.
3. The positive comments were: attentiveness/willingness to teach and dedication to teach. The negative ones were:
no time to teach/condescending/resenting student presence/ would not answer questions/ignored students;
inconsistent culture among residents.
4. Student comments suggest: Winthrop has an effective mentoring program with dedicated residents and faculty issues/problems are resolved in a timely fashion. Students have access to inexpensive meals. Exit interviews and
surveys are done anonymously after each clerkship and consistently throughout the year.
5. All positive responses on student mistreatment were based at SBUH.
The committee, as well the students present, gave comments and suggestions on how to change the learning and teaching
environment of SBU:








Re-educate hospitalists and dedicate increased efforts to help them become good teaching clinicians.
Course Directors should be involved in solving the problem. Course Directors should be asked about what they need
to improve the learning environment in their clerkships.
Incentivize the faculty to teach and reward good behavior. The Anesthesia department evaluates their faculty with
regard to teaching and asks students for feedback. Their faculty gets financial bonuses for effective teaching.
Role modeling and changing the culture - this is a complex idea, but highlights the fact that this is an institutional
issue.
A baseline level of set of expectations of an educator should be implemented.
Have a standardized learning environment-training course such as an online module for all.
Evaluate and monitor attendings about how they teach and keep them accountable.
Consider an online “Rate my Professor”
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
ACTION ITEMS
TOPIC
DISCUSSION
PERSON RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
Course Reviews – Dr. Wackett
Dr. Wackett gave a brief report that the course review process has changed tremendously. It has become more vigorous
with more data involved. Clinical doctors in basic science work closely with the course person to figure out problems in their
programs. The problem is that the process needs a lot of resources to get it done and it has fallen behind. The process is
O:\Acaaf\Committees\Curriculum’Meetings\2008-09\0809\currcomm minutes.doc
being looked at to see if it is necessary for every course to be evaluated or is there a way to evaluate at different levels.
CONCLUSIONS
ACTION ITEMS
ATTENDEES
PERSON RESPONSIBLE
Attendance: MEMBERS: Roger Cameron, Paul A. Fisher, Nisson Schechter, Mary Kritzer, Louis Merriam, Paul Richman,
Nisson Schechter, Gail Schuman, Laurie Shroyer, Stephen Vitkun, Andrew Wackett, Stephen Post, Alfredo Fontanini, Lisa
Strano-Paul, Laurie Krug, Susan Lane, Kenneth Kaushansky, Sandy Simon, Joy Schabel, Joe Sorrento, Eva Swoboda, Susan
Guralnick, Howard Fleit, Wei-Hsin Lu, Marilyn London, Latha Chandran, Moshe Eisenberg
STUDENTS: Daniel Donoho, Glenn Werneburg, Trevor Griffen
NEXT MEETING
DEADLINE
March 5, 2012
O:\Acaaf\Committees\Curriculum’Meetings\2008-09\0809\currcomm minutes.doc