Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Editorial. PBL - The Least Worst Curriculum Design?

Editorial. PBL - The Least Worst Curriculum Design? Advances in Health Sciences Education 3: 1–2, 1998. 1 Editorial PBL – The Least Worst Curriculum Design? In the Reflections column in this issue, Hemker gives some candid observations of the frequently uncomfortable role of the basic scientist in the PBL curriculum. His concerns are twofold: the content and organization of the curriculum and the downplaying of the role of basic science as a consequence of the focus on clinical problems, and the demeaned role of the basic scientist as a teacher. I think he is right on both counts. While organizing curricula around clinical problems may make the material more relevant (and the operative word is may, we have no evidence other than student opinion on this score) this comes with a cost. In our effort to ensure that all “-ologies” get equal representation, we often tend to cram our problems full of issues from every corner of the medical globe. The present chair of our program speaks of “vacuum cleaner” problems, where the students perceive that their role is to vacuum the problem for all the learning issues, so they can rush off to the library to study them, never to return to the problem again. Henk http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Health Sciences Education Springer Journals

Editorial. PBL - The Least Worst Curriculum Design?

Norman, Geoff
Advances in Health Sciences Education , Volume 3 (1) – Oct 13, 2004
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/editorial-pbl-the-least-worst-curriculum-design-mUASW6PU0F

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Education; Medical Education
ISSN
1382-4996
eISSN
1573-1677
DOI
10.1023/A:1009773611857
pmid
16180064
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Advances in Health Sciences Education 3: 1–2, 1998. 1 Editorial PBL – The Least Worst Curriculum Design? In the Reflections column in this issue, Hemker gives some candid observations of the frequently uncomfortable role of the basic scientist in the PBL curriculum. His concerns are twofold: the content and organization of the curriculum and the downplaying of the role of basic science as a consequence of the focus on clinical problems, and the demeaned role of the basic scientist as a teacher. I think he is right on both counts. While organizing curricula around clinical problems may make the material more relevant (and the operative word is may, we have no evidence other than student opinion on this score) this comes with a cost. In our effort to ensure that all “-ologies” get equal representation, we often tend to cram our problems full of issues from every corner of the medical globe. The present chair of our program speaks of “vacuum cleaner” problems, where the students perceive that their role is to vacuum the problem for all the learning issues, so they can rush off to the library to study them, never to return to the problem again. Henk

Journal

Advances in Health Sciences Education – Springer Journals

Published: Oct 13, 2004

There are no references for this article.