PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10760125

Task-based learning: the answer to integration and problem-based learning in the clinical years.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Integrated teaching and problem-based learning (PBL) are powerful educational strategies. Difficulties arise, however, in their application in the later years of the undergraduate medical curriculum, particularly in clinical attachments. Two solutions have been proposed - the use of integrated clinical teaching teams and time allocated during the week for PBL separate from the clinical work. Both approaches have significant disadvantages. Task-based learning (TBL) is a preferred strategy. In TBL, a range of tasks undertaken by a doctor are identified, e.g. management of a patient with abdominal pain, and these are used as the focus for learning. Students have responsibility for integrating their learning round the tasks as they move through a range of clinical attachments in different disciplines. They are assisted in this process by study guides. METHOD: The implementation of TBL is described in one medical school. One hundred and thirteen tasks, arranged in 16 groups, serve to integrate the student learning as they rotate through 10 clinical attachments. RESULTS: This trans-disciplinary approach to integration, which incorporates the principles of PBL offers advantages to both teachers and students. It recognizes that clinical attachments in individual disciplines can offer rich learning opportunities and that such attachments can play a role in an integrated, as well as in a traditional, curriculum. In TBL, the contributions of the clinical attachments to the curriculum learning outcomes must be clearly defined and tasks selected which will serve as a focus for the integration of the students' learning over the range of attachments.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Harden, J Crosby, M H Davis, P W Howie, A D Struthers. 2000. Task-based learning: the answer to integration and problem-based learning in the clinical years.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00698.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reforming the core clerkship in internal medicine: the SGIM/CDIM Project. Society of General Internal Medicine/Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine.

Dramatic changes in health care have stimulated reform of undergraduate medical education. In an effort to improve the teaching of generalist competencies and encourage learning in the outpatient setting, the Society of General Internal Medicine joined with the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine in a federally sponsored initiative to develop a new curriculum for the internal medicine core clerkship. Using a broad-based advisory committee and working closely with key stakeholders (especially clerkship directors), the project collaborators helped forge a new national consensus on the learning agenda for the clerkship (a prioritized set of basic generalist competencies) and on the proportion of time that should be devoted to outpatient care (at least one third of the clerkship). From this consensus emerged a new curricular model that served as the basis for production of a curriculum guide and faculty resource package. The guide features the prioritized set of basic generalist competencies and specifies the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes/values needed to master them, as well as a list of suggested training problems. It also includes recommended training experiences, schedules, and approaches to faculty development, precepting, and student evaluation. Demand for the guide has been strong and led to production of a second edition, which includes additional materials, an electronic version, and a pocket guide for students and faculty. A follow-up survey of clerkship directors administered soon after completion of the first edition revealed widespread use of the curricular guide but also important barriers to full implementation of the new curriculum. Although this collaborative effort appears to have initiated clerkship reform, long-term success will require an enhanced educational infrastructure to support teaching in the outpatient setting.

Clinical Clerkship↗

Evaluating the teaching of clinical preventive medicine: a multidimensional approach.

BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to determine the amount, methods, and adequacy of instruction in clinical preventive medicine topics in the medical school curriculum at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) in the 1996-1997 academic year. METHODS: A protocol of 35 clinical preventive medicine topics was developed. The preclinical (Years 1 and 2) curriculum was evaluated by reviewing all syllabi and other printed materials for the presence and quantity of instruction in the specific clinical preventive medicine topics. The clinical curriculum (Years 3 and 4) was evaluated by asking students on completion of eight clinical clerkships to answer a questionnaire. Clerkship directors were also asked to answer the same questionnaire. RESULTS: In the preclinical curriculum, clinical preventive medicine topics were found to receive 63.3 hours of instruction (4.2% of total instruction hours). Counseling and screening topics received the most hours (31.3 and 20.5, respectively) with immunization/prophylaxis and prenatal care receiving considerably less (4.0 and 2.4 hours, respectively). In the clinical curriculum, students reported receiving an average of 118.5 hours of instruction in preventive medicine (5.9% of total instruction hours). Clerkship directors reported more than twice as many hours of instruction (330.8) as students. Overall, only 50% of students reported that a topic had been covered in a clerkship when the clerkship director reported that it had been covered. Both students and clerkship directors reported that exposure to clinical preventive medicine topics was in general inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: Instruction in clinical preventive medicine constituted a relatively modest percentage of the total instruction time in both the preclinical and clinical curricula at UCSF. Some topics were only minimally covered in the curriculum, and instruction during the clinical years was variable across students and clerkships. The disparity in the amount of instruction in clinical preventive medicine reported by students and faculty illustrates the importance of using multiple methods, including student input, to evaluate curriculum content.

Clinical Clerkship↗