Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 315–324 | Cite as

Integration of Microbiology, Pharmacology, Immunology, and Infectious Disease Using Active Teaching and Self-Directed Learning

  • Natalie Steinel
  • Gregory C. Palmer
  • Emily Nowicki
  • Ernestine Lee
  • Elizabeth Nelson
  • Marvin Whiteley
  • Michael W. LeeEmail author
Monograph
  • 182 Downloads

Abstract

In an era of decreasing basic science curriculum at medical schools, we sought to re-imagine how to optimally deliver three core basic science disciplines (microbiology, pharmacology, and immunology) together with infectious disease in a 5-week course. This course, developed as part of a new 1-year pre-clinical basic science curriculum at the recently established Dell Medical School (DMS) at the University of Texas at Austin, featured a fully integrated curriculum in which the majority of the sessions were team-taught. This course, in line with the goals and missions of DMS, presented material using primarily self-directed and active learning approaches. Here, we describe the format and content of the course. We present our strategy and rationale for selecting these particular learning modalities and topics for pre-class and in-class coverage, using educational and cognitive psychology literature as a guide. We also discuss how, based on feedback from both student evaluations and performance data, the course evolved over the first two iterations.

Keywords

Integrated curriculum Co-teaching Self-regulated learning Self-Direceted learning Flipped classrooms Basic sciences Active learning Problem based learning 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

N.A.

Informed Consent

N.A.

Supplementary material

40670_2018_689_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (76 kb)
Supplemental Fig. 1 Overview of the 2016–2017 “Foundations of Disease” course. Shown here is a breakdown of the daily topics and cases covered during PILLARS and LGI sessions for the first iteration of the course. PILLARS cases are highlighted in blue. (PDF 76 kb)
40670_2018_689_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (85 kb)
Supplemental Fig. 2 Overview of the 2017–2018 “Foundations of Disease course. Shown here is a breakdown of the daily topics and cases covered during PILLARS and LGI sessions for the second iteration of the course. PILLARS cases are highlighted in blue. (PDF 84 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide no. 96. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):312–22.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finnerty EP, Chauvin S, Bonaminio G, Andrews M, Carroll RG, Pangaro LN. Flexner revisited: the role and value of the basic sciences in medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):349–55.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Irby DM, Cooke M, O'Brien BC. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):220–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(23):8410–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Szarek JL, Boardman JM, White M, Holt J. Integrated and flipped: 5 years’ Experience of integrating active learning in an integrated course. Med Sci Educ. 2016;26(1):159–67.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mandin H, Harasym P, Eagle C, Watanabe M. Developing a “clinical presentation” curriculum at the University of Calgary. Acad Med. 1995;70(3):186–93.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khalil MK, Kibble JD. Faculty reflections on the process of building an integrated preclerkship curriculum: a new school perspective. Adv Physiol Educ. 2014;38(3):199–209.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kibble JD, Bellew C, Asmar A, Barkley L. Team-based learning in large enrollment classes. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016;40(4):435–42.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee MW. Design and use of a proton pump inhibitor case to integrate physiology, pharmacology, and biochemistry. Adv Physiol Educ. 2014;38(1):104–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee MW, Soborowicz M. Evaluation of team-teaching as a means of integrating microbiology and pharmacology. Med Sci Educ. 2015;25(4):497–502.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khalil MK, Nelson LD, Kibble JD. The use of self-learning modules to facilitate learning of basic science concepts in an integrated medical curriculum. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(5):219–26.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bauler TJSB, Van Enk R, Lutwick L, Dickinson BL. Design and Implementation of an Integrated Course to Teach Immunology and Infectious Disease to First Year Medical Students. Med Sci Educ. 2016;26(4):701–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ginzburg SBJ, Willey J. Integration: a Strategy for Turning Knowledge into Action. Med Sci Educ. 2015;25(4):533–43.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halliday N, O'Donoghue D, Klump KE, Thompson B. Human structure in six and one-half weeks: one approach to providing foundational anatomical competency in an era of compressed medical school anatomy curricula. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(2):149–57.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kulasegaram K, Manzone JC, Ku C, Skye A, Wadey V, Woods NN. Cause and effect: testing a mechanism and method for the cognitive integration of basic science. Acad Med. 2015;90(11 Suppl):S63–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldman E, Schroth WS. Perspective: deconstructing integration: a framework for the rational application of integration as a guiding curricular strategy. Acad Med. 2012;87(6):729–34.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Agrawal S, Norman GR, Eva KW. Influences on medical students’ self-regulated learning after test completion. Med Educ. 2012;46(3):326–35.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL III. Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(10):959–66.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roediger HL III, Butler AC. The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011;15(1):20–7.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murad MH, Coto-Yglesias F, Varkey P, Prokop LJ, Murad AL. The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2010;44(11):1057–68.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Loyens SMMMJ, Rikers RMJP. Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol Rev. 2008;20(4):411–27.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Young JQ, van Merrienboer J, Durning S, ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education: AMEE guide no. 86. Med Teach. 2014;36(5):371–84.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bodemer DPR, Feuerlein I, Spada H. The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learn Instr. 2004;14(3):325–41.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jensen JL, Kummer TA, dM Godoy PD. Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2015;14(1):ar5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental SustainabilityLoyola UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Science and MathCurry CollegeMiltonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Population Health, Division of Family Medicine, Dell Medical SchoolUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  5. 5.Department of Medical Education, Dell Medical SchoolUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  6. 6.College of SciencesGeorgia Tech UniversityAtlantaUSA
  7. 7.Department of Oncology, Dell Medical SchoolUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  8. 8.Live Strong Cancer Institutes, Dell Medical SchoolUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  9. 9.Department of Medical Education and Live Strong Cancer InstitutesThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations