Modeling integration: co-teaching basic and clinical sciences medicine in the classroom

Abstract

PurposeCalls for revision in undergraduate medical education frequently cite the importance of integrating basic and clinical sciences and the use of active pedagogies. One under-appreciated approach to accomplishing both is interactive co-teaching, defined as two instructors with complementary expertise engaging students and each other instead of lecturing. This study sought to determine if interactive co-teaching helped students integrate and learn basic and clinical sciences, as well as to explore potential advantages and barriers to co-teaching.MethodsThe comparative success of solo- and co-teaching in a microbiology/infectious disease course was determined by surveying student perceptions at the end of the course and examination scores for questions based on either solo- or co-taught content. The advantages and barriers to co-teaching were explored by thematic analysis of student responses to open-ended survey questions.ResultsResults suggest that co-teaching supported content integration as a significant majority of students (92%, n=112) reported they understood the connection between basic and clinical sciences better when content was co-taught. In addition, a plurality of students indicated that co-teaching provided a better overall learning experience (81%, n=99), was more engaging (74%, n=90), and made it easier to apply content (74%, n=90). These positive perceptions were reflected in better exam outcomes for materials covered in co-taught over solo-taught sessions.ConclusionResults suggest students value co-teaching as a means to integrate basic and clinical sciences. However, interactive co-teaching pedagogies require careful planning and collaboration among faculty. Co-teaching requires the commitment of both faculty members to this pedagogy.

Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a learning model based on workstation activities

“…Since Flexner´s initial ideas advocating for integration of basic sciences, adopting multidisciplinary approaches in medical education has penetrated most institutions in varying degrees [1]. Thus, integrating basic and clinical sciences has become mainstream in reputed programs [2,3]. Finnerty [4], revisited the standard view to adopt a "basics to clinics" integrated approach by giving special emphasis to the introduction of scientific rigor and basic sciences (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, etc.)…”

Examining the Short‐, Medium‐, and Long‐Term Success of an Embodied Learning Activity in the Study of Hand Anatomy for Clinical Application

“…However, despite this new‐found proximity between anatomy and clinical skills, students still find it difficult to apply their anatomical knowledge to undertake and understand the physical examination (Boon et al, 2002; Roche et al, 2009). Various initiatives have been devised to aid students in this process including practical‐based clinical correlates (Boon et al, 2002; McLachlan et al, 2004), co‐teaching basic and clinical sciences (Willey et al, 2018), and team‐based learning (Kolluru et al, 2012). However, even in an integrated curriculum, amalgamation between the basic and clinical sciences remains a challenge when the program structure, geographical location of teaching facilities and staff, and reduced curriculum time preclude proximate integration.…”

Co-teaching Model Promotes True Integration for Integrated Curriculum of Urology

“…The concept of team teaching/co-teaching however, exists in education which has been found to be an innovative teaching-learning methodology with many advantages in its own way (3,4,10). Co-teaching includes ve models: team teaching, parallel teaching, one teach one support, alternative teaching and station teaching(3).…”

“…Co-teaching was accepted by most students, but as showed in Table 7, there are more demands for tutors, owing to the need of teachers' joint efforts of urology and nephrology disciplines. They need more time to prepare teaching, and design integrated modules for coordination, which needs get both subjects experts at one place to discuss and organize learning objectives, ow of contents, their clinical relevance and applications as would be presented by them (10). Traditional teaching, on the other hand, requires comparatively less efforts as it is executed in isolation.…”