Advertisement

Towards Modern Basic Science Teaching in Medical Education

  • Yasser El Miedany
Chapter

Abstract

Integration of basic and clinical science knowledge is increasingly being recognized as important for practice in the health professions. Integration in modern medical curricula means abandoning the traditional discipline-based discreet segmentation and isolation of teaching and learning activities within “concrete” silos. Integration seeks to break down the barriers between subject areas in order to provide students with better learning opportunities that will facilitate the development of knowledge which is relevant and meaningful to clinical practice, deep, retrievable and amenable to alteration, updating and development as a part of an ongoing process of lifelong learning. In contrast to horizontal integration which refers to bringing together the disciplines, topics and subjects, vertical integration refers to bringing together basic and clinical science. However, to what extent shall basic sciences be incorporated in the medical teaching, what are the barriers and how do basic sciences fit into the medical practice? This chapter will try answering these questions. It will extend to include recent approaches to modern basic sciences teaching.

Keywords

Basic science Education Medical teaching Blended learning Motivation Online learning Narrative Social intelligence Taylorized medicine 

References

  1. 1.
    Duffy TP. The Flexner report – 100 years later. Yale J Biol Med. 2011;84:269–76.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elstein AS, Schwartz A, Higgs J, Jones M. Clinical reasoning in medicine. Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann; 2000. p. 95–106.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Norman GR, Brooks LR. The non-analytical basis of clinical reasoning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1997;2(2):173–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patel VL, Evans DA, Groen GJ. Reconciling basic science and clinical reasoning. Teach Learn Med. 1989;1(3):116–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weatherall DJ. Science in the undergraduate curriculum during the 20th century. Med Educ. 2006;40:195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians, AAMC, 2009.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sweeney G. The challenge for basic science education in problem-based medical education. Clin Invest Med. 1999;22:1v–22.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:226–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. http://www.acgme.org/outcome/comp/compmin.asp. Accessed 11 Apr 2017.
  11. 11.
    Pangaro L. A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving descriptive in-training evaluations. Acad Med. 1999;74:1203–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pangaro L. Investing in descriptive evaluation: a vision for the future of assessment. Med Teach. 2000;22(5):478–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kulasegaram KM, Martimianakis MA, Mylopoulos M, Whitehead CR, Woods NN. Cognition before curriculum: rethinking the integration of basic science and clinical learning. Acad Med. 2013;88:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide no. 96. Med Teach. 2015;37:312–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pangaro L. The role and value of the basic sciences in medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):349–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel VL, Evans DA, Groen GJ. Reconciling basic sciences and clinical reasoning. Teach Learn Med. 1989;1:116–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patel VL, Groen GJ, Arocha JF. Mem Cogn. 1990;18:394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Woods NN, Brooks LR, Norman GR. The role of biomedical knowledge in diagnosis of difficult cases. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2007;12:417–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Torre DM, Daley BJ, Sebastian JL, Elnicki DM. Overview of current learning theories for medical educators. Am J Med. 2006;119:903–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knowles M. The adult learner: a neglected species. 2nd ed. Oxford: Gulf Publishing; 1978. p. 244.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koens F, Mann KV, Custers EJFM, Ten Cate OTJ. Analysing the concept of context in medical education. Med Educ. 2005;39(12):1243–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sobral DT. What kind of motivation drives medical students’ learning quests? Med Educ. 2004;38(9):950–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Curry L. Cognitive and learning styles in medical education. Acad Med. 1999;74(4):409–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams GC, Saizow RB, Ryan RM. The importance of self-determination theory for medical education. Acad Med. 1999;74(9):992–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mann KV. Motivation in medical education: how theory can inform our practice. Acad Med. 1999;74(3):237–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryan RM, Frederick CM, Lepes D, Rubio N, Sheldon KM. Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. Int J Sport Psychol. 1997;28(4):335–54.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Misch DA. Andragogy and medical education: are medical students internally motivated to learn? Adv Health Sci Educ. 2002;7(2):153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Howell LP, Joad JP, Callahan E, Servis G, Bonham AC. Generational forcecasting in academic medicine: a unique method of planning for success in the next two decades. Acad Med. 2009;84:985–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eckleberry-Hunt J, Tucciarone J. The challenges and opportunities of teaching “Generation Y”. J Grad Med Educ. 2011;3(4):458–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pew Research Center. Millennials: a portrait of generation next. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2010.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mangold K. Educating a new generation: teaching baby boomer faculty about millennial students. Nurse Educ. 2007;32:21–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pangaro LN. A primer of evaluation. In: Fincher RM, editor. Guidebook for clerkship directors. 3rd edn. North Syracuse, New York: Alliance for Clinical Education; 2005.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Woods NN, Neville AJ, Levinson AJ, Howley EHA, Oczkowski WJ, Norman GR. The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis. Acad Med. 2006;81:S124–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hanninen V, Koski-Jannes A. Narratives of recovery from addictive behaviours. Addiction. 1999;94(12):1837–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Labov W, Waletzky J. Narrative analysis: oral version of personal experience. In: Helm J, editor. Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press; 1967. p. 12–44.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hunter K. Doctors’ stories – the narrative structure of medical knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hunter K. “There was this one guy …”: the uses of anecdotes in medicine. Perspect Biol Med. 1986;29(4):619–30.  https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1986.0079.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alderson TSJ, Bateman H. Doctors telling stories: the place of anecdote in GP registrar training. Med Teach. 2002;24(6):654–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jill Gordon J, Martyn Evans H. Learning medicine from the humanities. In: Swanwick T, editor. Understanding medical education: evidence, theory and practice. London: Association for the Study of Medical Education; 2010. p. 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pringle M, Bradley C, Carmichael C, Wallis H. Significant event auditing. A study of the feasibility and potential of case-based auditing in primary medical care. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 1995;70(i–viii):1–71.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sandars J, Murray C, Pellow A. Twelve tips for using digital storytelling to promote reflective learning by medical students. Med Teach. 2008;30(8):774–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ausubel DP. Educational psychology: a cognitive view. Austin: Holt, Reinehart and Winston; 1968.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ellis AW, Young AW. Human cognitive neuropsychology: a textbook with readings. East Sussex/New York: Psychology Press; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Easton G. How medical teachers use narratives in lectures: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Goleman D. Social intelligence: the new science of human relationships. New York: Bantam Books; 2006.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mellor C. Experiential learning through integrated project work: an example from soil science. J Geogr High Educ. 1991;15(2):135–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ford PJ, Foxlee N, Green W. Developing information literacy with first year oral health students. Eur J Dent Educ. 2009;13(1):46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thakore H, McMahon T. Virtually there; e-learning in medical education. Clin Teach. 2006;3:225–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lewin LO, Singh M. Blended learning B. Improving education in primary care: development of an online curriculum using the blended learning model. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Voos R. Blended learning – what is it and where might it take us? Sloan-C View. 2003;2(1):2–5.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Karimzadegan D, Mojtahedzadeh R, Mohammadi A. E-learning in medical education in the world and Iran. J Med Educ. 2007;11:37–9.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gibbons A, Fairweather P. Computer-based instruction. In: Tobias S, Fletcher JD, editors. Training and retraining: a handbook for business, industry, government and military. New York: McMillan Reference; 2000. p. 410–42.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chumley-Jones HS, Dobbie A, Alford CL. Web-based learning: sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature. Acad Med. 2002;77(Suppl. 10):S86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wood BP. Blended learning in medicine: trouble in paradise? Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Makhdoom N, Khoshha K, Algaidi S, Heissam K, Zolaly M. Blended learning’ as an effective teaching and learning strategy in clinical medicine: a comparative cross-sectional university-based study. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2013;8(1):12–7.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wenzel RP, Edmond MB. Academic I.D. in jeopardy: the erosion of time, professional values, and physician satisfaction. Infection. 2015;43:141–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Edmond MB. Taylorized medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:845–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Taylor FW. The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers; 1911.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Palmer D, El-Miedany. EROMIA in inflammatory arthritis: the next step in standard practice. Br J Nurs. 2010;19(1):42–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hartzband P, Groopman J. Medical Taylorism. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:106–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wenzel RP. Medical education in the era of alternative facts. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):607–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasser El Miedany
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.King’s College London, Darent Valley HospitalDartfordUK
  2. 2.Rheumatology and RehabilitationAin Shams UniversityCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations