Working Groups
Working Groups are a way to engage with peers around a specific education related topic to pursue greater understanding of educational practices and strategies in order to advance educational quality at the CVM.
Key aspects of Working Groups are that they:
- have 3 – 8 participants from faculty & staff, only faculty, or only staff as appropriate
- meet meet once per month (10-12 primary meets) over the course of one academic year
- conclude with presentations at the following AoE Education Day of findings and products.
The following is a list of sample topics along with “pain points” that may reflect how one feels about a given topic. You may find yourself drawn to participate in a particular topic, depending on how each point resonates with you:
Teaching Models and Interactive Learning Materials Development (round 2)
Pain Point: “It is becoming more difficult to maintain the availability and quality of teaching models, simulations, and interactive learning materials. Other schools may have a solution that is adaptable for implementation at NCSU-CVM.”
Potential Output: Development of inter-communication tools to catalog what is used and on what replacement schedule. Work to secure alternative sources and materials should traditional supply lines fall out.
Memory Training
Pain Point: “First year veterinary students are presented with a considerable amount of information, however, most have never been trained on methods to efficiently assimilate information.”
Potential Output: Develop curriculum specific memory training program to facilitate learning and enhance retention in veterinary students.
Spectrum of Care (round 2)
Pain Point: “I’m not sure everyone truly understands what spectrum of care actually is, how it’s being taught, or where it’s being reinforced.”
Potential Output: Institutionalize practices around spectrum of care for the sake of promoting the provision of care by reducing barriers due to preconceptions and misconceptions (i.e. spectrum of care is not a reduction of quality of care).
Accommodations in Instructional Design [Universal Design of Learning]
Pain Point: “Instructors want to be aware of and account for different learning needs, but struggle to implement education practices that are both effective and time efficient (both in terms of class time and prep time).”
Potential Output: Develop CVM specific guidelines around best practices of Universal Design and implementation of such.
Carbon Footprint of CVM Practices
Pain Point: “By frequently turning to A.I. to assist with task completion, CVM students, staff, and faculty are unintentionally making environmental impact decisions whose cost/benefit ratio is unknown.”
Potential Output: Awareness raising information regarding A.I. and how it is best utilized in terms of contributing to task completion with minimal environmental impact.
Advisor Support
Pain Point: “Currently, advisor training and expectations are inconsistent, and there is a lack of structural support to address these concerns.”
Potential Output: Policy and practice recommendations focused on advising, specifically on defining the roles of advisors, refining advisor training resources, increasing knowledge for students regarding what they can do with advising, and more.
Teaching Practice Inventory
Pain Point: “I want to try a new teaching method (i.e. flipped classroom). However, I do not know where to go to see the method in practice and ask advice on how to get started.”
Potential Output: “Inventory of non-traditional teaching methods being utilized by CVM instructors to use both as a reference and point of contact for questions.”
Case Study Development
Pain Point: “Case studies are a great way to teach, but they are time consuming to create.”
Potential Output: Develop a process for building case studies in a timely manner, relying on technology for both the building and implementation of as appropriate.
If you have questions or would like more information, email Jason Plummer (jcplumme@ncsu.edu) or Tiffany Shin (tshin@ncsu.edu)