Premium
The limits of tutors' comfort zones with four integrated knowledge themes in a problem‐based undergraduate medical curriculum (Interview study)
Author(s) -
Maudsley Gillian
Publication year - 2003
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.1365-2923.2003.01497.x
Subject(s) - curriculum , problem based learning , medical education , qualitative research , psychology , population , theme (computing) , public health , content analysis , pedagogy , medicine , mathematics education , sociology , nursing , computer science , social science , environmental health , operating system
Purpose To explore how a cohort of problem‐based learning (PBL) tutors (with diverse medical and other content expertise) conceptualised their students' integrated learning agenda, particularly for content less familiar to the vast majority, such as public health elements. Setting Problem‐based undergraduate medical curriculum, The University of Liverpool, in its first‐ever year. Participants Foundation PBL tutors for Year 1 students, Semester 1. Method A cross‐sectional, semistructured telephone interview study was undertaken during spring 1997, with open‐ended questions about Semester 1 experience of the four main themes. Qualitative data were analysed inductively and iteratively for emerging patterns and instances. Results All 34 tutors responded. Of these, 26/34 (76%) were male and 23 (68%) were medically qualified. Towards the end of each approximately (median) 20‐minute interview, reflecting on the curriculum themes, tutors mostly identified with the basic/clinical science theme ( Structure and Function ). Almost half articulated a clear division (implicitly or explicitly ‘fact’ versus ‘non‐fact’) between it and the ‘other three’ themes of behavioural science, population science, and ethicolegal aspects of professional practice, respectively. Only 14/34 (41%) of tutors (including both public health doctors) outlined the public health‐based theme adequately without disclosing confusion, antagonism/indifference or difficulties/uncertainty. Conclusion This study provides baseline qualitative insights about new PBL tutors' insecurities when facilitating student discussion across integrated content. Given the difficulties of recruiting suitable educators into this role and potential resource limitations, staff retention and development strategies still must confront the reality of PBL tutors' bemusement when they are placed outwith their usual comfort zones.