2016_SUNY_Optometry_PRR

accurately by faculty, and research into the effectiveness of the simulators versus traditional teaching methods is being planned. Low Vision As part of the major curricular revision that was rolled out starting in 2008, the topic of low vision, which previously comprised a stand ‐ alone course, was to be taught in several ocular disease courses in conjunction with the treatment of relevant clinical conditions. Low vision rehabilitation of the patient with age ‐ related macular degeneration, for example, would be covered at the time the clinical management of this condition was taught. Data from both exit surveys and NBEO examinations suggested that with this approach, student learning was falling short of expectations. For the Class of 2011, the last class to complete the old curriculum, 27% of the respondents believed that not enough lecture/lab time was devoted to the subject 8 . This value increased with the implementation of the new curriculum to 75%, 73%, 62% and 67%, respectively, for the Classes of 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. NBEO data were consistent with student perceptions. As can be seen in Appendix 5.15 , performance on questions related to low vision was weak with respect to national data and SUNY student performance in other areas of the examination. These data were presented and analyzed at meetings of the IRPC, President’s and Dean’s Council and Curriculum Committee. In 2014 ‐ 15, the Curriculum Committee developed and passed a detailed proposal to address the shortcomings of low vision education. This proposal consolidates low vision didactic instruction into a single instructional unit that consists of lectures and laboratories ( Appendix 5.16 ). The proposal was approved by the Office of Academic Affairs and instituted in the 2015 ‐ 16 academic year as a course entitled Low Vision. It is taught in the second year of the curriculum and consists of 12 hours of lecture and 5 hours of lab. Exit surveys and NBEO performance will continue to be monitored to assess the effectiveness of this intervention. Clinical Medicine Prior to the recent major curricular revision, clinical medicine was taught in a two semester course devoted exclusively to this topic. In the revised curriculum, material covered in this course was distributed throughout courses in the biological ocular disease sequences with the goal of better integrating it with related material. As was the case with low vision, student perceptions of instruction in this area, as revealed by exit surveys, fell short of expectations. For the class graduating in 2011, the final year of the old curriculum, 27% of respondents indicated that not enough lecture/lab time was devoted to the topic of general medicine. In the years subsequent to implementation of the new curriculum, higher percentages of students indicated that not enough lecture/lab time was devoted to this topic; in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 the percentages rose to 48%, 57%, 52% and 60%, respectively.

8 Exit surveys were initiated with the Class of 2011.

37