Appendix Two

CURRICULAR REFORM ACTION PLAN

Divide ACTION INTO THREE STAGES

STAGE 1: ACTIVE LEARNING/ FD
STAGE 2: The NEW CURRICULUM PLANS
STAGE 3: CLINICAL YEARS REVIEW

Overall Structure of Action Plan

The Curriculum Evaluation Working Group (CEWG) will serve as the overall steering committee for the project. Several subgroups will be working in parallel with periodic reporting to the CEWG.  Every subgroup (8-10 members) will have one or two members from the CEWG as the liaisons and will include at least two medical students.
Subgroup meetings will be organized by the UGME Office (Donna Kaufman, Rhonda Kearns) and to facilitate cross communication, all documents will be shared using the Shared Documents functions of Drupal.

Suggested Format For Sub Group Meetings
Literature Review
SWOT analysis
Suggested action plans (with timelines and resource needs)
Monthly/ Periodic reports to the CEWG cmte.

SUBGROUPS AND TASKS

Subgroup One: Resources for learning
Focus: e -lectures, multimedia learning tools, syllabi, etc
Co-Chairs:  Moshe Eisenberg, Janet Hearing

Subgroup Two: Active Learning and Skill Development (OSCEs, simulations, TBL, CBL, PBL, Labs, CPCs)
Development of skills for students
Development of skills for faculty
Co-Chairs:  Howard Fleit , Meenakshi Singh
Member/s:  Perrilynn Baldelli

*Subgroup Three: Student Learning and Peer Assessments
How do students take primary responsibility?
What would some of their concerns be?
What are some solutions that they would offer?
How do we facilitate student peer assessments?
Will they count for grades? How much?
Co-Chairs:  Arjun Iyer, Kaveh Mogbelli, Valerie Wong
Member/s:   Paul Richman

*Subgroup three is primarily a student run group and does not need additional faculty volunteers now.

Subgroup Four: Integrated Curriculum
How will the new curricular structure look like?
What are the components of the Foundational Courses?
Where are the gaps, redundancies (wanted and unwanted)?
How do we cover USMLE, LCME and AAMC required topics?
What are the intended and unintended consequences of the change?
Co-Chairs:  Howard Fleit, Steve Shelov
Members Richard Bronson, Janet Hearing, Kaveh Mogbelli (student)

Subgroup Five: Clinical Experiences and Translation Pillars
How do we structure our clinical experiences in the second stage?
Are there opportunities for integration amongst clerkships?
What are the most appropriate Translation Pillars (TP)?
How would the TPs be structured? Graded?
In stage III: what are the challenges and opportunities to moving towards Longitudinal
Integrated Clerkships?
Co-Chairs:  Lisa Strano-Paul, Andrew Wackett, 

Subgroup Six: Themes, Competencies and Intersession Topics
How will the new curriculum affect the competencies of the SOM?
How will we assess student achievement of the competencies?
Are there specific themes that run longitudinally across the whole curriculum?
What are the intersession topics that need to be included?
How will they be taught and assessed?
How can these topics and themes help integrate the curriculum better?
Co-Chair/s:  Iris Granek

Subgroup Seven: Grading and Assessment of Students
How will students be graded in the new curriculum?
How will competencies be meaningfully graded?
What is required to move assessments from MCQs to other forms?
What challenges and opportunities exist in this area?
Co-Chairs:  Wei Hsin Lu, Paul Richman
Member/s:  Richard Bronson