Problem-based learning in medical education: Developing a research agenda

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning

BACKGROUND

What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL).

METHOD

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times.

RESULTS

A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content.

DISCUSSION

UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training.

PBL in undergraduate medical education: a qualitative study of the views of Canadian residents

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

At McMaster University, the birthplace of problem-based learning (PBL), administrators and curriculum planners have begun the process of renewing the undergraduate MD curriculum. One step has been to conduct an environmental scan that includes input from medical residents.

METHODS

Individual interviews with 17 medical residents and fellows currently enrolled at McMaster University and are graduates of six Canadian medical schools.

RESULTS

PBL appears to be well known even by graduates of non-PBL Canadian medical schools. Tutors are key to a successful PBL program, should be knowledgeable about the content area under study and able to effectively facilitate groups. Tutorial problems should be realistic, up-to-date, and challenge students to investigate more than the medical aspects of the case in question. Students need to be prepared, willing to participate in peer teaching, and supportive of the group learning process. PBL programs can be improved if they incorporate elements of traditional medical programs (e.g., mini-lectures, clear learning objectives, and unbiased evaluation of student progress) while retaining the essence of student-generated learning.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical residents are an underutilized source of information about undergraduate medical programs. According to our participants, more emphasis on faculty development and upgrading health care problems will improve PBL-based undergraduate medical education.

Prospective randomised comparison of traditional, personal bedside and problem-oriented practical dermatology courses

PURPOSE

This paper reports a prospective, randomised study comparing a problem-oriented practical (POP) course based on paper cases to a personal bedside teaching (PBT) practical course and a standard practical course.

METHODS

During 2 consecutive terms, students were randomly allocated to either 2 POP groups/term (n = 10/group), 2 PBT groups/term (n = 10/group) or the standard practical course, which consisted of a rotating system of lectures and bedside teaching with randomly appointed tutors. Each course was evaluated with the same 12-item questionnaire and multiple-choice test administered at the beginning and end of the course.

RESULTS

The numbers of students evaluated were 36 for the POP groups, 37 for the PBT groups, and 155 for the standard course. The PBT and POP courses were rated significantly better (P < 0.001) than the standard course for all items. Aggregate marks (mean +/- SD) were: 1.59 +/- 0.8 for the POP course; 1.69 +/- 0.68 for the PBT course, and 2.71 +/- 0.98 for the standard course. There were no significant differences between the POP and PBT courses. Significantly better learning rates as indicated by an increase in the number of correctly answered questions were observed in students attending the POP and PBT courses.

CONCLUSION

This prospective study demonstrated that there was no difference in the rating of a POP course and a bedside teaching course by students randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different pedagogical approaches. Furthermore, both alternative options achieved better ratings than the standard course, which is current teaching practice in our medical school. The PBT and POP approaches provided superior learning success and POP helped solve the problems of standardisation and patient recruitment.

Does a new undergraduate curriculum based on Tomorrow's Doctors prepare house officers better for their first post? A qualitative study of the views of pre-registration house officers using critical incidents

INTRODUCTION

In 1994 Manchester University introduced an integrated undergraduate medical course using problem-based learning (PBL) throughout. The study reported here explored whether there were any differences between the new course graduates (NCGs) and the traditional course graduates (TCGs) in the types of scenarios they recalled as 'critical incidents', or challenging cases, while working as pre-registration house officers (PRHOs). The focus is on differences rather than causal links.

METHOD

We used semistructured interviews to generate our data. Twenty-four traditional course graduates and 23 new course graduates were interviewed approximately 3 months after starting their first PRHO placement.

RESULTS

We identified 4 types of critical incidents relating to: clinical practice; limitations of competence; emotional involvement; and communication. Traditional course graduates reported difficulties in making patient management decisions, whereas the NCGs were better at dealing with uncertainty, knowing their limits and asserting their rights for support. Communication difficulties and coping with emotional involvement were common across both groups of graduates and hence remain problems in relation to being prepared for the role of a PRHO.

CONCLUSIONS

Graduates of the new, integrated curriculum seemed to be much better at dealing with uncertainty, knowing their personal limits and asserting their rights for support when they felt these limits had been reached. Communication difficulties and emotional involvement remain major factors in the transition from student to PRHO.

Evaluation of Teaching and Learning Strategies

With the growing awareness of the importance of teaching and learning in universities and the need to move towards evidence-based teaching, it behooves the professions to re-examine their educational research methodology. While the what, how and why of student learning have become more explicit, the professions still struggle to find valid methods of evaluating the explosion of new innovation in teaching/learning strategies. This paper discusses the problems inherent in applying traditional experimental design techniques to advances in educational practice.

Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: research and theory

PURPOSE

This article provides a critical overview of problem-based learning (PBL), its effectiveness for knowledge acquisition and clinical performance, and the underlying educational theory. The focus of the paper is on (1) the credibility of claims (both empirical and theoretical) about the ties between PBL and educational outcomes and (2) the magnitude of the effects.

METHOD

The author reviewed the medical education literature, starting with three reviews published in 1993 and moving on to research published from 1992 through 1998 in the primary sources for research in medical education. For each study the author wrote a summary, which included study design, outcome measures, effect sizes, and any other information relevant to the research conclusion.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The review of the literature revealed no convincing evidence that PBL improves knowledge base and clinical performance, at least not of the magnitude that would be expected given the resources required for a PBL curriculum. The results were considered in light of the educational theory that underlies PBL and its basic research. The author concludes that the ties between educational theory and research (both basic and applied) are loose at best.

Problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in a course of basic pharmacology: a controlled, randomized study

Since its first implementation in a medical programme at McMaster University, Canada, problem-based learning (PBL) has become a well-established means of teaching and learning medicine. Extensive research has been conducted and a number of strengths of the method are well supported. Several items, however, remain unclear although there is evidence that no relevant difference exists in factual knowledge among students from PBL and traditional curricula, a controlled, randomized study has not been conducted to address this issue. The Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne is in the process of integrating elements of PBL into its curriculum. In the spring term of 1997, after seven semesters of experience with PBL supplementing the traditional course of basic pharmacology, we did for the first time use PBL instead of the lecture-based course (LBL) and conducted a controlled prospective study to determine the effects of this intervention. One-hundred and twenty-three students were randomly assigned to either PBL (n = 63), with tutorial groups of up to nine students, or to the traditional, lecture-based course (n = 60). Analysis of the results of both groups in the examination of basic pharmacology, consisting of multiple-choice and short-essay questions, revealed similar scores with a tendency favouring PBL students in the category of short-essay questions. Hence, it seems clear that PBL does not imply a disadvantage in terms of factual knowledge. Students considered PBL to be an effective learning method and favoured it over the lecture format. Furthermore, students reported positive effects of PBL in terms of use of additional learning resources, interdisciplinarity, team work and learning fun.