Premium
The role of basic sciences in a problem‐based learning clinical curriculum
Author(s) -
O'Neill Pa
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00629.x
Subject(s) - curriculum , problem based learning , mathematics education , medical education , psychology , medicine , pedagogy
Background Very little is known about the use of problem‐based learning (PBL) during the later years of the undergraduate medical course and how it influences further acquisition of basic science knowledge. Similarly to many other Faculties, the PBL approach is used at Manchester in years 1 and 2, but more unusually, the curriculum continues to be centred on PBL in the clinical modules. Objectives To explore whether and how basic science learning was continued in year 3 of the PBL clinical curriculum. Methods 10 of the weekly problems from the two core modules in year 3 were analysed to determine: (a) whether the design teams were using basic science objectives in devising the problems, and (b) whether PBL student groups were setting basic science learning objectives. The basic science knowledge of year 3 and 4 students was also measured. Results Similar numbers of objectives were being set by the management groups for each weekly problem (Heart, lung and blood (HLB) module, median 15, range 11–20; Nutrition, metabolism and excretion (NME) module, median 13, range 9–21). In the basic sciences, there was a median of 3 objectives per problem (range 0–6) in the NME module, but only 1 objective (0–2) per problem in the HLB module. The objectives set by six PBL groups in each module were analysed. Overall, agreement was reached on 130 occasions (62%) between the design team basic science objectives and those set for themselves by the student groups. In addition, there was a median of 2 (range 1–8) new basic science objectives brought out by the PBL groups that were not listed by the HLB module design team. In the NME module, there was again a median of 2 new objectives (range 0–6). The performance of year 3 and year 4 students in the multiple‐choice questions progress test was analysed. For the 65 basic science questions, the year 3 mark was 40·8 ± 12·3% compared with 57·1 ± 12·3% for year 4 ( P < 0·0001). Conclusions (a) The design teams are setting basic science objectives; (b) the working problems are triggering students to set learning objectives in the basic sciences; (c) most of the objectives being set by the design teams are being triggered in the majority of group sessions; (d) the students knowledge of basic sciences increases in years 3–4.