Premium
Information Overload in the Teaching of Pharmacology
Author(s) -
Achike Francis I.,
Ogle Clive W.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
the journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.92
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1552-4604
pISSN - 0091-2700
DOI - 10.1177/00912700022008838
Subject(s) - information overload , curriculum , medical education , preparedness , medical school , principal (computer security) , psychology , continuing medical education , quality (philosophy) , medicine , pedagogy , computer science , continuing education , political science , philosophy , epistemology , world wide web , law , operating system
Medical students are usually drawn from the best of students, but it is not unusual to see these brilliant students fail their exams or even dismissed from medical school because of poor academic performance. Information overload has been recognized as one of the major contributing factors to this problem. The situation is expected to get worse, with the ever‐present technology‐induced exponential growth in information. In discussing this issue, the authors echo the concerns of several experts regarding the content overload of medical school curricula, particularly in pharmacology. It is the increasing awareness of this problem that led the Association of American Medical Colleges and the General Medical Council of Britain to promote the concept of a core curriculum for each of the principal disciplines in medicine. Several medical schools have adopted the concept and also the problem‐based learning approach, which focuses on ameliorating the complex problems associated with information growth in medical education. Based on the authors' experience as medical students, medical practitioners, and pharmacology teachers, they discuss the factors that contribute to information overload, from psychological and nonpsychological perspectives. Issues such as the design and structure of the curriculum, the quality of training and effectiveness of the teachers (clinically qualified vs. nonclinically qualified teachers), and the psychological preparedness of the students are discussed. The authors make suggestions for improvement.