January 19, 2017
Attending: Susan Albright and Hugh Stoddard, Co-Chairs; Terri Cameron, Sascha Cohen, Jennifer Cuthbert, Walter Fitz-william, Cyndi Lybrand, Tina Redd, Paul Schilling, Jenny Shaw, Valerie Smothers.
1 Review minutes
The minutes were accepted as submitted. Terri provided an update on the number of schools that participated in the Curriculum Inventory There schools that submitted. Two of them were osteopathic, and five Canadian. The osteopathic schools are not likely to continue as AAMC and AACOM do not have agreement to move forward. Overall, Terri was happy with the results but hoped for more Canadian school participation. She wanted to thank all the vendors and developers who made this all possible.
2 Review of sample curriculum using milestones as expectations
Sascha noted the example Valerie provided was how we might relate milestones as expectations of achievements to points in the curriculum. He commented that they are not directly linking milestones to specific courses or other curricular constructs. Milestones are more broadly associated with objectives. Susan asked if they were tied to learning objects and Sascha confirmed they were not. She asked how the milestones are mapped. Sascha explained it was done as part of the original curriculum planning.
Valerie that the curriculum inventory currently does not support linking parts of the curriculum to performance frameworks/milestones. Competencies could be tied to performance framework separately. She recommended clarifying the value in linking performance frameworks to curriculum data before making a decision to add that functionality. Sascha replied that he doesn’t see consistent value in that link. He added that curriculum data could inform performance decisions.
Hugh looked at performance framework as a statement of the intention of the educational program, and the pathway to get there. He noted the part of the value in the curriculum inventory standard would be the ability to look at student performance in the context of curricular events. That’s essential for student accountability and program evaluation. Sasha agreed that looking at the activity, student outcomes, and expectations of achievement together would be very valuable. Hugh added that the important thing is being able to merge this data to answer questions. Cindy noted it may be difficult to get players to agree on a common approach.
Terry asked why we would not have milestones expressed as expectations. Valerie mentioned the Curriculum Inventory Advisory Board thought multiple things to map to would cause confusion. She added that from a standards perspective, we want to support what people are doing, not what they might do. Jennifer added that approaches would differ depending on the institution. Terri agreed with Valerie on having separate mapping to recognize competency based education with expectations leading to milestones for a school.
Sascha’s group is looking into facilitating the management of information using LTI, Learning Technology Interface which allow systems to interact with one another. He hopes to have more information in the next month to share with the group.
Hugh commented that thinking in linear or hierarchical fashion will not accomplish what medical schools are thinking in ten years. Medical education is moving towards EPAs. The ACGME is going that way. We need to collect data we can use for that purpose. The EPA is a unit of work done by graduates. How do we get them where they need to be? Valerie asked how we can bring that together to understand, evaluate and improve on the program. What data is important to see? Hugh supported using EPA’s rather than competencies. Valerie and Susan asked if mapping curriculum data to EPAs would be helpful. Valerie noted EPA’s can be represented as competency object and competency framework and can be used to show how EPA’s relate to curriculum, events and courses. Terri confirmed some schools are doing that now for events and expectations. Valerie added to make it easier there should be a way of indicating an expectation is an EPA using the category field. As a next step, Valerie will show how to represent an EPA in the CI standard.
3 CI API proposal update and ANSI announcement timeline (published Dec 23, 30 day comment period)
Valerie mentioned the Curriculum Inventory API was approved by the Executive Committee. They are currently working on marketing materials. ANSI has published the announcement December 23 and this is followed by a thirty-day comment period.
4 Next steps for API development (for reference see use cases, Ilios APIs, and API architecture)
Valerie announced Sacha agreed to be editor for this project. She was grateful to Sacha and his team of colleagues who are doing great work. She suggested started to work on the competency side and API around competency. She asked for volunteers for a sub-committee to begin work on API development and Susan agreed to help.