Child pages
  • 2010-03-12
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

March 12, 2010

Time:

8 PST/11 EST/16 GMT

Please note: the conferencing service will ask you to enter the pound sign. Press # for pound.

Attending: Kim Hoffman, chair; Jody Poet, Valerie Smothers, Staff; Carol Carraccio, Jessie Friedman, Bob Galbraith, Gwen Garrison, Maureen Garrity, Simon Grant, Chandler Mayfield, Pat O'Sullivan, Morgan Passiment, Kevin Souza.

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last call

The minutes were approved.

2 Continue discussion of lessons learned from UCSF implementation* (excel spreadsheet)*

A discussion followed recapping the progress of Kevin and his group at USCF regarding their data compilation efforts.  Kevin discussed the time and people involved in compiling data for 5 students as well as the time involved thinking about the data compilation from a broad perspective.  Kevin identified five different locations educational trajectory data would come from: school-based system, registrar system, e-portfolio system, self-reporting and data from other institutions.  His group identified the primary owners of the data to assist schools in knowing who to talk to and the challenges associated with getting the data.  Their group compiled the data fields from the excel spreadsheet into an XML document, and some of the time of the reported effort included efforts to build an XML schema to validate the data.   The data manager determined one of the fields missing was "program".  Valerie commented that as the specification becomes final, an XML schema or other validation mechanism would be something that MedBiquitous would provide to all implementers. 

3 Review changes to specification and John Doe diagram*(questions for group)*

Valerie continued with a review of the specifications and the changes that have been made.  The lines are  a consistent width now so that it does not appear that John Doe spent more time on the formal program in some years than in others. In addition, the two different shades of blue highlight the learner's top picks for enrichment activities.  On page two, there is a popup summarizing the program the learner follows.  The dates were adjusted to align with the current UCSF program. On slide 5, a medical school link was added for an activity that is an outcome of the MS degree and slide 6 shows what the attachment might look like.  A recommendation was added to include publications of learner whenever possible.  Kim agreed that this distinction allows the learner to prioritize and learn more about the person and find out what they value.   Slide 7 includes an enrichment activity with a link to a supervisor testimonial.  Valerie asked if the group wanted to provide guidance on what the testimonial should be.  The example is a scanned letterhead letter included as an attachment.  Pat asked how this would be used.  Kim mentioned students could submit verified and unverified information and maybe have a link to a publication and keep it open.  Lastly, Valerie mentioned she would like to work with Simon to determine a better structure for publications.  Pat suggested including some kind of clarification of documents and specifically noting copyright implications. 

Kim questioned Carol of the likelihood that she as a program director would want to read an entire article?  Carol thought it would be very unlikely but that the citation is the most important thing. Kim noted formats are not given to students.  Carol mentioned the issue of roles.  Kim shared students can stipulate format of citation, which would include a statement of their contributions, but not provide any electronic resources which exclude copyright.  The UCSF module has copyrighted materials that can only be accessed through UCSF or by contacting the author.  Kim noted that the APA format provides a standardized way to do that.   
Valerie continued with a list of questions to discuss. Will data regarding withdrawal and dismissal will be authored by the institution? The group agreed it would.  Valerie questioned whther formatting should be encouraged, or plan text for describing activities. The group agreed the plain text format was easiest to read. Valerie asked whether a scanned letter on letterhead would be an appropriate recommendation for a testimonial. The group agreed that was appropriate.  The group recommended changes to the description of a testimonial. 

Valerie added that we are now including a list of publications and asked if there were other types of resources that needed to be included or listed somehow.  Carol asked what the notion of a word like artifacts is.  Valerie suggested it is the same as a resource. There are two things we can define for resources - the relationship to an activity (this poster is an outcome of activity Y), and the type of resource (this is a publication).  The group discussed the need for clear definitions. Valerie commented a popup window of definitions might be helpful.  Simon noted it would be hard to define publications. Kim suggested spending more time this week thinking about this and continuing this discussion on the next call. Kim concluded by mentioning that members of the EII are in the process of pulling data for pilot sets by March 31st.  The pilot groups are using excel spreadsheets. 

4 Open discussion

Decisions

Action Items

  • No labels