Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information


April 16, 2010


8 PDT/11 EDT/16 BST

Call in Number

GERMANY +49-69-2222-7806
GREECE +30-80-1-100-0695
NETHERLANDS +31-20-718-8593
SWEDEN +46-8-566-19-394
GLASGOW +44-141-202-3228
LONDON +44-20-3043-2495
MANCHESTER +44-161-601-1428
USA +1-203-418-3123



Please note: the conferencing service will ask you to enter the pound sign. Press # for pound.
To mute, press *6.

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last call.

The minutes were accepted.

2 Discuss definition of publication

Kim summarized that there were four different decision points around scholarship that the group needed to address:

  • Whether we want to document a relationship to a specific activity (ie Poster is outcome of x program).
  • What type of resource is it, publication or poster, for example, and how much detail?
  • What was the student's role in production of the resource?
  • Format - Do we force the student to choose from selected options or allow free text? 

Kim asked the group to consider type of resource: is it important to document the type of publication? How much detail is necessary or helpful? 
Linda commented that the least you would want would be the kinds of categories in a cv. That would help the learner later when putting together a cv. Kevin agreed. 

Kim asked Linda to provide a definition of peer review. Linda replied that she didn't think definitions were necessary. Simon commented that a definition would help people to reply honestly and correctly. He recommended people send in their cv categories so that we could put together a common list. Then we can see if a standard list is appropriate. 

Lindsey commented that many faculty don't understand categories for publications, so we shouldn't expect students to understand it. She agreed that coming up with a list and definitions of the basics would be helpful. She suggested Peer reviewed manuscripts, books, book chapters, review articles, case reports, abstracts and posters not published in another form. She asked how we would categorize other peer reviewed resources like MedEdPortal.   

Kim agreed in the value in having definitions, particularly if we think about them being used outside of the US. She endorsed the idea of a set of fields. Linda commented that there may already be a standard out there and agreed to research the topic. 

Lindsey asked if we were also interested in presentations. Kim replied that was the question. It is more likely people will have abstracts and posters. She asked the group if they wanted that detailed information, or if they need to know that the learner created a poster. 

Pat commented that a checkbox with a short message would be parsimonius. She encouraged the group to use a simple approach. If we ask for too much detail, people won't use it. Lindsey agreed. You could have a check box for peer review and indicate whether it is a paper, presentation, or poster. 

The group will send the categories they use to Valerie, who will incorporate the information into the specification. 

Kim then moved to the students role. How important is it to document? To Linda's point, if point is to begin the cv process, we would want the learner to document that. Simon asked if this would be a category or free text. Pat supported a free text field. Many journals currently request this. Kim agreed. 

Valerie asked whether the description of role was the same as reflection. Kim commented that she thinks about the two separately. One would provide an opportunity to describe, in academic language, the learner's role in the project. The other provides the opportunity to reflect on that role.  

Simon questioned whether categories would be needed to enable someone reading the trajectory to determine the learner's role in a quick scan. Pat commented a qualifying free text area would be very important. Linda questioned whether the group wanted the facts or reflection. We probably want the capacity for both, but we don't have to require both. 

Kim commented that maybe what would be helpful would be a field for reflection and a field with a list of standard academic levels of contribution. The student could do one or both. The group agreed. Valerie agreed to research the contribution categories journal editors have agreed to. (note: see  

The group then moved to discuss whether publications should document a relationship to a specific activity. An example would be that a publication is an outcome of the Bryant scholars program. Valerie added that specifying such relationships could be helpful in educational outcomes research.  

Kim commented that she had no strong argument for a separate field. Linda recommended trying it out with real data. Pat commented that with open fields, the learner drives what comes forward. Valerie agreed to mock something up for the next phone call.

3 Review proposed format for citations (*revised specification,* open questions*)*

4 Update on pilot

Kim commented that an update on the pilot project was appropriate as the results of the pilot would inform the agenda for this group. Six schools provided data, 4 provided information on the level of effort. Several agreed to send additional information. The pilot succeeded in that it helped us to understand areas for further discussion. A few of those are around standardized approach to how we describe and document students who are decelerating or on independent learning contracts. We will revisit the original discussion around LOA. Students are not really on leave, not really full time.  

Another area for clarification is the representation of joint degree students. Currently this uses Coursework beyond primary degree. We need to revisit definitions so that it is apparent where to include things like a class in the business school, not part of a degree program. Also, we should recommend a list of primary degree names. Each school used something diff to describe the MD degree. Some schools organized data around the AAMC id - that was a communication issue, not an access issue. Also, information around the expected grad date should be clarified.  

Schools that have not reported data are still working on that. Jason commented that he received a dataset yesterday from Indiana. Kim asked Jason to update the group after looking at the data. 

Gwen commented that the aamc id is non-confidential and can be used to share data. Having a common identifier is essential for moving forward. Lindsey offered to resend the data. Kim commented that was unnecessary; the group has learned what it needed to know. 

Kim offered to put items for clarification on future agendas. Enrichment activities was on the list as well. We'll also need to decide what else we will need to fully build the technical specification.

5 Questions raised by pilot, process for addressing (differences between pilot data and specification)


To describe a student's role in a publication, there will be a field for reflection and a field with a list of standard academic levels of contribution.

Action Items

  • Linda will research different categories used for bibliographies/publications
  • The group will send the categories they use to Valerie, who will incorporate the information into the specification.
  • Valerie will research the contribution categories journal editors have agreed to.
  • Valerie will mock up relationships between publications and activities, incorporating other decisions made on the call.
  • Jason will update the group on the pilot progress.
  • Kim will organize a list of items that require further clarification. 

Pilot findings for future agendas:

  • Categorizing students who are decelerating or on independent learning contracts.
  • Leave of Absence
  • Joint degree programs vs. non-degree program classes
  • Primary degree names
  • Expected graduation date
  • Enrichment activities
  • No labels