This session was run as a mini-workshop in a library resource center where the participants were seated in front of PC computers, where they opened the URL: tx.technion.ac.il/~webcip/ and followed the instructions for building and solving a webCIP (the computer version of the conventional paper CIP addressed in the reprint handouts) – while addressing the importance of matching the assessment method to the objectives of pre-clinical – clinical integration. The participants agreed that assessment drives the curriculum, and that innovative teaching techniques that retain conventional MCQ testing give the learners the message that nothing has really changed. The importance of team work in constructing the CIP was discussed, as well as the contribution of this assessment method to teaching in an integrative manner, as opposed to juxtaposing pre-clinical and clinical material. The advantages of the CIP scoring method – where the horizontal scoring reflects integrative ability, (and hopefully also clinical reasoning and diagnostic thinking), while the vertical scoring enables differentiation of proficiency in various disciplines, was greatly appreciated, mainly by the pre-clinical participants of the session. Some of the participants expressed a desire to introduce this assessment method in their respective schools. The “hierarchy of advising” was discussed and is defined below as the pathway that medical students should follow when discussing course and clerkship issues: Course/Clerkship Director --> Chairperson --> Assistant or Associate Dean for Medical Education or Student and Academic Affairs --> Dean of the College --> Formal Grievance Procedure When medical students do not follow the proper chain of command problems generally ensue. The legal issues attendant medical student-advising were discussed. The importance of annotating advising sessions was emphasized, especially when discussing unprofessional student behavior. Annotation is also important when students present with serious personal issues. It was suggested that annotations from such meetings be saved, but not placed in a medical student’s permanent file until warranted. Annotations of meetings with medical students can be very helpful if the student seeks a leave of absence later. Confidentiality was also discussed. There are times however when an advisor is duty-bound, and in some cases legally bound to break a confidence. Such situations include when a student threatens to harm themselves or others. The issue of advising medical students using email was discussed. It was suggested that hardcopies of communications with students be maintained due to the potential legal implications of email student advising. In addition, three case examples were discussed. The first dealt with a student who sought assistance from a faculty member who refused to answer the student’s questions. The second concerned a student whose academic performance was incongruent with expectations, with the student becoming clinically depressed. The third case concerned a student who was late in submitting her request to the Dean’s Office to take the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1. She requested that the school policy be waived to allow her to take the exam later. These cases brought out many of the issues discussed previously and served to concretize major points. Participant evaluation of the session indicated clearly that this session was informative and of interest **** **** ****
|
||||||||||||||