PERSONAL RESILIENCY AS A STRATEGY FOR SURVIVING AND THRIVING IN A DOCTORAL ROGRAM

1. PERSONAL RESILIENCY AS A STRATEGY FOR SURVIVING AND THRIVING IN A DOCTORAL ROGRAM By: Marissa Fulache EDUC 7808 – Dr. M. Cuellar Fall Quarter 2013

2. Summary of the dual program • The Medical Scientist Program (MSP) at the University is designed to attract those students who are energized by doing biomedical research and wish to contribute substantially to this enterprise. The expectation is that graduates of this program will pursue a career in academic medicine and medical research. The program integrates graduate and medical education in a Christian environment and is designed to allow completion of both the PhD and MD degrees. • The program is designed to develop a student's independence and competence as an investigative scientist and clinician by providing students with a broad educational base for the practice of medicine and medically related research. The program is administered by the School of Medicine in cooperation with the Faculty of Graduate Studies. • Students enter the combined degree program through the graduate program. After two years of study and the demonstration of laboratory success, as indicated by completion of a first-author manuscript, students will continue on to the traditional first two years of the medical school curriculum. Following successful completion of Step 1 of the USMLE examination, students will begin a series of rotations between the clinical sciences and the research laboratory, completing all of the standard clinical rotations as well as the requirements for their PhD degree. In most cases, the sequence should take approximately seven to eight years to complete. • Admittance into the MSP is competitive and requires evidence that students are likely to develop into successful medical scientists. Students must submit separate applications to the School of Medicine for both the PhD and the MD programs and meet the stated admissions requirements for each of these programs. The application package for the PhD program requires scores for the general test of the Graduate Record Exam. Both programs must accept applicants before they are admitted to the Medical Scientist Program. Students who have entered the MD/PhD program who subsequently determine that a research career is inappropriate may elect to complete the MD program independently. Students entering the PhD program who desire a career in academic medicine may choose to apply for admission to the MD/PhD program some time after their entry into the PhD program; however, the standard medical school application process will be required at that point. • Candidates who meet these criteria are offered a complete package of financial support that covers tuition for the medical and graduate programs and a stipend while they are involved in the graduate program.

3. Evaluation Approach • The evaluation approach that I will be implementing is the formative evaluation approach and also incorporating Daniel Stufflebeans’ CIPP model in describing the “context” if the current curriculum being implemented has significant results, the “inputs” for measurable outcome, the “processes” resources and strategies, “products” or accomplish outcomes.

4. Program Curriculum • 2 pathways currently being practiced 1st Pathway • 2 years in the PhD curriculum. • 2 years in the MD curriculum, following Step 1and 2 USMLE examination. • 2 years in the PhD curriculum. • 2 years in the MD curriculum.

5. Program Curriculum Con’t. 2nd Pathway -2 years MD Curriculum -3 years PhD Curriculum -1 year MD Curriculum -1 year PhD Curriculum -1 year MD Curriculum

6. Purpose of Evaluation • The reason as to why I have chosen to evaluate the MD/PhD curriculum is because there has been an increase rate of attrition within the program. Although the MD/PhD curriculum may have success rate over the years in response to continuous evaluation by students and faculty, it is evident that the number of graduates has decreased. In evaluating the MD/PhD curriculum, I will be able to take a closer look as to where the problem may have started and what I can do as an evaluator to present to the boards that my action plan will work. The goals of this evaluation are to improve the curriculum of the MD/PhD program, to help the graduate students within the MD/PhD program achieve their learning experience, and to prevent them from withdrawing from the program. The objective is to increase the number of students graduating from the MD/PhD program. The purpose of this program evaluation is to analyze as to why the curriculum that is currently implemented may not be the best fit to the students and as a result, they withdraw from the program.

7. Propose plan as an evaluator For the experimental group, the design that I will propose is for a group of MD/PhD students to do the following: • First 3 years of medical school. • In between the 3 years period, the students will do their research rotation and find a desired laboratory in which they will be doing their research on for their dissertation. • 1 year of PhD theory-based courses and continue the laboratory research. • 4th year medical school.

8. Reason for the propose model With the proposed model above, the total years of the MD/PhD program will be achieved in five years instead of the usual seven to eight years. The timeline to the program evaluation will be for six years. The reason for the six years timeline is that this will provide me a much accurate measures if the program evaluation will have a much better success completion rate as compared to the current pathway curriculum. During my six years evaluation, I will be providing my client an annual report on the academic status of the experimental group as evidenced by their grades and GPA (grade point average). Along with the experimental group’s academic status, I will also take notes and assess their mental capacity as evidenced by their still being in the program and without any thoughts of withdrawing from the program. After my six-year timeline and by evidenced that I have not lost a single experimental group member, I will know that my proposed evaluation of the program was successful.

9. Goals • Goals • - To improve the curriculum of the MD/PhD program. • -To help achieve the students with learning experience. • - To prevent students from withdrawing from the program.

10. objectives • To the best route that will work appropriately for the MD/PhD population. • To increase the number of students completing both degrees. • To increase the graduation rate. • To reduce attrition rate.

11. purpose • To closely monitor and analyze as to why the current curriculum of the program is not effectively working.

12. Recommendations • 1 year of coursework. • 1 year clinical. • 2 years research. • Another year of clinical. • Final academic year covers elective clinical study to complete the requirements for the MD degree. • MD research project requirement will fulfill the PhD dissertation. Straight MD student spends his/her 3rd year in a year long research project. Medical Scientist student moves straight into the PhD setting in lieu of the 3rd year project as a medical students.

13. Suggestions • For PhD students to shadow medical students in the hospital. • To allow PhD students to take the Shelf exam (National Board of Medical Examiners) prior starting medical curriculum. For both programs to engage in seminars, clinical and research.

14. Methodology design I will be using the quasi-experimental mix-design for the evaluation. The quantitative part of the evaluation will be data collection from previous reports such as information of the number of students who’ve matriculated in the program, students who’ve withdrew from both programs, students who’ve withdrew from the MD curriculum, students who’ve withdrew from the PhD curriculum, and students who’ve completed both MD/PhD degrees. The qualitative portion of the program evaluation will consist of interview, questionnaire, and survey and using the Likert-scale design. The interview process will be an ethnographic approach where I conduct a one-on-one interview and to try to isolate the reasons as to why he or she may be encountering some challenges and what may be the contributing factors. By being able to categorize and recognize the concerns surrounding the MD/PhD curriculum that’s causing some students distress, I will be able to generate an action plan to help unravel the concerns on the current curriculum.

15. conclusion Evidence has shown that there’s been an emerging trends of decreasing numbers of graduates in the MD/PhD program. It’s critical for the institution to implement a much better pathway that best suits to the MD/PhD students and that will provide a much positive outcome and lower the attrition rate.

16. References • Misanchuk, E. R. (1978). Uses and Abuses of Evaluation in Continuing Education Programs: On the Frequent Futility of Formative, Summative, and Justificative Evaluation. Adult Education Research Conference, April, San Antonio, Texas. • Rossett, Allison & Sheldon, Kendra (2001). Beyond the Podium: Delivering Training and Performance to a Digital World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer • Saettler, Paul (1990). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., p. 350. • Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, 39-83. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

17. Questions?