2. Credit Hours 7, 9 weeks duration, Phase II, Year 3, Semester 5, Started: 25 Shawal, 1434 H (1 September, 2013 G) Ended: 11 Moharam, 1435 H (14 November, 2013 G) Module Coordinator: Khaled Khalil

3.  This reported version of the module is that ran for the second time.  First version was ran in academic year (1433 – 1434 H).  Major changes from the previous version can be summarized as follow: 1433 – 1434 H1434 – 1435 H Overall objectivesRemain the same regarding the number & phrasing Content Themes22 Lectures6975 Practicals1516 PBL66 Seminars94 (repetition was removed) Case discussion74 (repetition was removed) Clinical skills54 (moved to practical)

4. 1433 – 1434 H1434 – 1435 H Detailed objectives  All objectives of the first version were included with exception of anaphylaxis (irrelevant).  New detailed objectives were added in the new lectures and practicals. Teaching MethodsThe same Assessment Methods QuizzesNoYes (15 %) Continuous40 %60 % Final60 %40 %

5. Coverage of Planned Program Reason for Variations if there is a difference of more than 25% of the hours planned: changes were less than 25 % All planned program was carried out except the field visits Justifications: a)Visits were designed to specialized respiratory & CV centers which were lacking in Majmaa. b)Module was conducted at start of the academic year Thus, time was too narrow to arrange. Meanwhile, the new mechanism settled by medical education was not still activated. c)Changes done in timetable due to vacations and some workshops made it necessary to sacrifice visits as a time-consuming activity (objectives will be covered later in clinical years)

6. Effectiveness of Planned Teaching Strategies Difficulty experienced by the students: -Noncompliance on the time for teaching methods (more time for lectures while time for others are not fully used). -Noncompliance on the objectives designed for lectures. - DSL & tutorials are not utilised as proposed. - PBL conduction still faces some problems:  Non coverage of all objectives in some PBL groups.  Discrepancy in evaluation of the tutors (higher or lower).  Non declaration of the evaluation to the students.  Panel discussion role is now regressed or even neglected. Suggestion: 1- Rules for attendance should be settled, approved, and declared to both students and tutors. Regular follow-up by module and year coordinators is a must (already done).

7. 2- The time allocated for different activities (PBL, CD, Seminars) should be revised by curriculum committee (1.5 hours instead of 2 hours may be sufficient). 3- Objectives for activities should be rephrased to be suitable for time allocated 4- Urging of the tutors to stick to the objectives designed for lectures. Follow-up by coordinators and peers is a must. Preparation of exams should stick to the objectives (not the given presentation). The tutors are required to map their questions in relation to objectives (started in this module). Suggestions by the tutors for addition of new objectives should considered in preparation of new module. 5- A well constructed objectives that are not repeated in other teaching methods should be phrased for DSL. Follow-up by a nominated tutor is a must. 6- A professional detailed description of interactive tutorials should be approved by curriculum committee.

8. 7- Assignment of certain depth of knowledge in a well-detailed tutor guide for both PBL, CD and seminars (started now in nervous module but still lacking for seminars). 8- A rubric for evaluation of activities is present. But a detailed description for grades of assessment (a role of medical education + quality center). system should be formulated. 9- The evaluation should be followed by module coordinator. Thus, extremes of evaluation (too high or too low) should be discussed with both tutors & students and corrective actions should be taken when necessary. 10- Objectives intended in PBL should be disclosed to the students after session 2 and quiz by the coordinator in the panel discussion. Required content experts should be invited for discussion with the students when needed.

9. ResultsResults %No 95-100 (A+) 0 90-94 (A) 1 85-89 (B+) 0 80-84 (B) 6 75-79 (C+) 4 %No 70-74 (C)2 65-69 (D+)13 60-64 (D)11 < 60 (F)7 Started: 48, withdrawn: 4, Passed: No 38 ( 79.1 % ) Failed: 7 (14.6% ) Denied Entry No: 0 ( 0 % )

10. Resources and Facilities -Lack for equipped pathology and biochemistry labs. Thus, most of their practical sessions are using demonstrations instead of proper practical activity. Suggestion: Pathology and biochemistry labs should be well equipped. Administrative Issues -This module being the first to be conducted in semester 5 is usually coinciding many vacations that disturbs timetable. -A new workshop for scientific research was not pre-pared & introduced in the first week Suggestion: Slots for vacations and workshops should be considered. Changes in timetable should be avoided.

11. Course Evaluation -Number of students sharing: 40 out of 44 set for exam. -Timing of evaluation: after termination of activities 2 days before exam. -Procedure: by student affairs. Overall Student evaluation of the course Strength: % represent agree and strongly agree in the survey (above 65%)  Basic outlines regarding knowledge & skills that module was designed for developing was clear to me (100%).  Requirements of successes in the module were clear to me (84%).  Guiding module resources were clear to me (including office hours for Faculty, references, etc) (77%).  Module implementation & tasks that I was asked to do were matching with basic outlines of the module (90%).

12.  Staff members were committed in perfectly delivering the module (77%). (e.g. punctuality, continuous availability & appropriate preparation of educational means).  Staff members who deliver this module have proper grasping of all contents of the module (81%).  Amount of work in the module matches with allocated credit hours for the module. (68%)  Staff members were available for guide & help during office hours (97%).  Staff members were enthusiastic for their tasks (87%).  Module contents were up to date & useful. (Text books, study guides, references, etc.) (77%).  Resources were available for this module when needed (84%).  Information technology utilization was effective for supporting me in the module (65%).

13.  Asking questions & developing my special thoughts were encouraged in this module (68%).  I was encouraged to express my best in this module (65%).  Tasks asked for me to do supported developing my knowledge & skills the module aimed at instructing (65%).  Link between this module & other modules in the curriculum was clear to me (81%).  What I have learned in this module is essential & will be utilized in the future (97%).  This module assisted me in improving my ability of thinking & problem solving instead of just recalling information (90%).  This module assisted me in improving my skills in team work (74%).  This module assisted me in improving my effective communication (87%).  I feel generally satisfied about standard of quality in this module (94%).

14.  Correction of my assignments & assessments was fair & convenient (39%).  Staff members were interested in my academic progress & were supportive for me (42%).  Marks for assignments & assessments were released to me within reasonable time (42%). Criticism: % represent true sometimes, disagree and strongly disagree in the survey (more than 40%)

15. Summary of the comments written by student on point 23, 24 and 25 of course report  This module was so organized regarding the timing of the teaching activities in relation to each other. There was neither repetition nor overlap. The related teaching subjects were timely related.  I feel generally satisfied about standard of quality in this module.  Some tutors had excellent knowledge about the subject & Lectures by some faculty arouse our interest and motivation. Strength: Criticism:  More activities and quizzes are concentrated mainly toward the end of the module that overload the students before the exams  Some of the questions of quizzes are beyond the objectives extracted in PBL.  Time management of some doctors was extremely bad. Prepared by one student after discussion with all students.

16.  Organisation of information in the presentation by some tutors was not good, presentation was too much overloaded.  Majority of lecturers didn’t summarize the lectures.  The quizzes should be spaced evenly during conduction of module. Scenarios should be tailored to suit the time required to be filled.  Revision of the quizzes by the module committee experts to ensure their coping with module objectives.  Tutors are instructed to ensure the coverage of all intended learning objectives by the students in the activities.  All the faculty members are instructed to follow the class timing strictly.  Presentations will be orderly organized and will not be overloaded.  Lecturers will be asked to summarize the lecture at the end.  Other actions were mentioned before. Response of instructor or course team to this evaluation:

17. Other Evaluation Major criticism mentioned by some tutors:  The problem of PBL were solved in the scenarios. They need it as an open-end case leaving the solution to be reached by the students.  In some lecture (pathology & Biochemistry), time allocated is not enough to cover the objectives. Response of instructor or course team to this evaluation:  The committee believed that PBL is learning by solving problems and not for solving problems themselves. Lacking of some cues in PBL will force the tutor to interfere to guide and may direct the students. PBL scenarios should be revised by experts in this field to settle the dispute.  Objectives of pathology & biochemistry lectures should be revised carefully.

18. Action Plan for Next Semester/Year  A thorough revision of the contents of the module suggested by the subject expert teachers.  Clinical knowledge (objectives) should be reviewed by clinical experts. One expert from internal medicine should be added to the module committee.  PBL, CD and seminar tutor guide should be reviewed and full answer of the intended questions and objectives should be included.  Number of CDs should be increased to cope with the duration of the module.  Topics should be rotated between CDs and PBLs.  The pathology & biochemistry objectives should be revised for better timing.  The field visit objectives should be revised to be achieved in outpatient clinics. Otherwise, early arrangement for visits to centers outside Majmaa should be considered.

19.  The changes in the schedule will be avoided maximally.  PBL & CDs should be more timely arranged.  A well constructed objectives that are not repeated in other teaching methods should be phrased for DSL. Follow-up by a nominated tutor is a must.  A professional detailed description of interactive tutorials should be approved by curriculum committee.