Basic Sciences Course Review Guidelines

INTRODUCTION

All courses within the basic sciences shall be reviewed periodically. Courses will be reviewed at four (4) year intervals.

When a course is selected/selected for review by the CC the Chair of the basic sciences Curriculum Subcommittee will alert the Course Director. They will also (after discussion with the Sr. associate dean of basic sciences) appoint a Chair of the Review Committee.

It will be the responsibility of the Chair of the Review Committee to ensure that the Course Director and other members of the faculty participate fully in the review process.

The goal of the course review is to ensure that instructional methodology and content of the course is academically sound and in step with the educational mission of the University's Medical School and the MD Program Objectives. The review will include the gathering of data including student feedback, assessment data, faculty reflections on the curriculum, learning objectives and mapping, clinical experience, completion rates, and resources as well as reflecting on the improvement plan generated from the previous review.

It is important to emphasize that the review process is not intended to be threatening but rather to be helpful and constructive. Confidentiality must also be maintained throughout the process. All deliberations and reports must be kept confidential.  The review would accompany only Curriculum related issues, objectives, teaching methods and evaluation. Faculty Evaluation and administration matters of the department are not included.

COURSE REVIEW PROCESS

Course reviews will be organized and will proceed according to a schedule as follows:

1. The Curriculum Committee decide on the schedule for the course reviews as part of their annual calendar and communicate this to the Chair of the BSCSC.
2. The Chair of the Basic Science Curriculum Subcommittee and the senior associate dean of basic sciences meet to select the Chair of the Review Committee (see also Appendix 1). The Chair must not be a faculty member that is responsible for teaching on the course that is being reviewed. Following the selection of the Chair, the members of the Review Committee are selected. The members are selected by the Chair of the Review Committee. A recommended minimum of four members that do not teach in the course that is being reviewed should participate. The Review Committee should consist of members from all levels (Instructors, Assistant, Associate and Full Professors) and from a range of disciplines. Once all the Review Committee members have been selected the names are passed to the Course Director. The Course Director has the opportunity to appeal any of the members if there is a conflict of interest.
3. It is the responsibility of the Chair of the Review Committee to establish clear expectations for each of the members.
4. The Chair of the Review Committee should consult the Course Director about the criteria, expectations and timetable of the review process.
5. The Course Director is required to submit a report on the current status of the course that should include:
   1. Course objectives and goals
   2. List of faculty
   3. Description of how the course is run
   4. Description of the changes that have been adopted since the last review if appropriate.
6. The Course Director should also make the following materials available to the review team:
   1. Full access to course Sakai site
   2. Course syllabus and learning pathway
   3. Access to ExamSoft to all formative assessments for the past 4 years
   4. Textbooks/supplemental materials
   5. Student evaluations of the course for the last 4 years
   6. Course grades for the last 4 years (in all campuses)
   7. Any other data (e.g., minutes of meetings) pertaining to the course
7. All teaching faculty of the course under review will be asked to submit a written SWOT   report to the Chair of the review Committee. This report will remain confidential.

8. The Review Committee will select a number of faculty to meet for live/virtual interviews during the review process. These faculty will include:

   1. Course Director

   2. All Module Coordinators

   3. All content managers (whose discipline is represented on the course)

   4. Instructor(s) responsible for ITI coordination

   5. A selection of clinical tutors

   6. A random selection of faculty that teach on the course.

9. The Review Committee will also interview students (selected by SGA) who are:
   1. currently taking the course
   2. have recently (within the last 12 months) taken the course
   3. are currently in their 3^rd year

10. The main review process will be conducted over a period of 1-2 weeks where all the live interviews will be conducted and the resources provided by the Course Director are reviewed.

11. Each member of the review team will be required to submit a provisional individual written reports to the Chair of Review Committee within a week of the final live meeting.

12. The Chair of the Review Committee will compose a final report (see Appendix 1) using the individual team members reports as guidance. This report will be presented to basic sciences Curriculum Subcommittee for review.

13. The basic sciences Curriculum Subcommittee then work with the Course Director to propose an improvement plan based on the recommendations of the Review Committee.

14. The improvement plan is presented to the Curriculum Committee along with the data from the Review Committee.

15. Once the improvement plan has been approved by the Curriculum Committee it is forwarded (along with the data) to the dean for approval.

16. The improvement plan is then implemented.

17. The Course Director will send an interim report to the Chair of the basic sciences Curriculum Subcommittee within twelve months after the review of the course and a final report within 24 months after the review.  The interim report should include an update on the implementation and results of the improvement plan.