Skip to main content
Log in

“Chalk and blackboard interactive 2-day workshop” for pediatricians in training and medical students: preliminary experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Medicine and the Person

Abstract

“Problem-based learning” differs from lecture-based teaching because it centers on problems using scenarios to illustrate previously taught material and takes place within a group, where participants contribute to the learning process at every stage. Furthermore, there is no mention of the teacher, because its leader acts as a facilitator. Between 2011 and 2013, we organized six “chalk and blackboard interactive workshops”. For each workshop, 6–8 medical students, 12–14 pediatricians in training and 2–4 experienced pediatricians met during 2 days to address clinical cases. Each case dealt with using two blackboards according to a simple schedule: (1) two pediatricians in training (alternatively: one student and one pediatrician in training), supported by one experienced pediatrician, present the problem of a child, ask the participants to collect further diagnostic information and to plan the examination (the experienced pediatrician, the pediatrician in training and the medical student had previously pitched a script containing well-defined educational goals); (2) the participants make and justify a diagnostic assessment, suggest and interpret the laboratory tests and finally recommend management; (3) the interpretation of diagnostic studies is also carefully dealt with. The time spent to deepen basic skills is higher than that devoted to diagnostic tests and treatment. Enormous participant gratification and enthusiasm were described by the participants to each workshop. In our opinion, “problem-based learning” and “chalk and blackboard workshop” share common advantages. The major advantage of the “chalk and blackboard workshop” is the inclusion of experienced pediatricians, who concurrently act both as teachers and facilitators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Obviously, when the diagnosis seems clear-cut—a simple upper respiratory illness or a case of hives, for example—these steps may be superfluous.

References

  1. Clark RV (1994) History and physical examination. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 23:699–707

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Unti SM (1994) The critical first year of life. History, physical examination, and general developmental assessment. Pediatr Clin North Am 41:859–873

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schechter GP, Blank LL, Godwin HA Jr, LaCombe MA, Novack DH, Rosse WF (1996) Refocusing on history-taking skills during internal medicine training. Am J Med 101:210–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Diwan AG, Kulkarni R, Sada E (2012) History taking: still a valuable tool in today’s era of modern medicine. J Assoc Physicians India 60:68

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lara-Torre E (2008) The physical examination in pediatric and adolescent patients. Clin Obstet Gynecol 51:205–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Outram S, Nair BR (2008) Peer physical examination: time to revisit? Med J Aust 189:274–276

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nishigori H, Masuda K, Kikukawa M, Kawashima A, Yudkowsky R, Bordage G, Otaki J (2011) A model teaching session for the hypothesis-driven physical examination. Med Teach 33:410–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Easton G, Stratford-Martin J, Atherton H (2012) An appraisal of the literature on teaching physical examination skills. Educ Prim Care 23:246–254

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rozenman Y, Gilon D, Fuchs S (1997) Clinical problem-solving. Where did good old clinical diagnosis go? N Engl J Med 336:1435–1438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Round A (2001) Introduction to clinical reasoning. J Eval Clin Pract 7:109–117

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rencic J (2011) Twelve tips for teaching expertise in clinical reasoning. Med Teach 33:887–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Collins J (2004) Education techniques for lifelong learning: making a powerpoint presentation. Radiographics 24:1177–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Collins J (2004) Education techniques for lifelong learning: giving a powerpoint presentation: the art of communicating effectively. Radiographics 24:1185–1192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alpert JS (2011) Some simple rules for effective communication in clinical teaching and practice environments. Am J Med 124:381–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harden RM (2008) Death by powerpoint—the need for a ‘fidget index’. Med Teach 30:833–835

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Volpintesta EJ (2011) The perils of powerpoint. Am J Med 124:e9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Engel CE (1992) Problem-based learning. Br J Hosp Med 48:325–329

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Galey WR (1998) What is the future of problem-based learning in medical education? Am J Physiol 275:S13–S15

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mennin S, Gordan P, Majoor G, Osman HA, Network TUFH (2003) Position paper on problem-based learning. Educ Health (Abingdon) 16:98–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wood DF (2003) Problem based learning. BMJ 326:328–330

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kilroy DA (2004) Problem based learning. Emerg Med J 21:411–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Neville AJ (1999) The problem-based learning tutor: Teacher? Facilitator? Evaluator? Med Teach 21:393–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Koh GC, Khoo HE, Wong ML, Koh D (2008) The effects of problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review. CMAJ 178:34–41

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dewey J (1894) The ego as cause. Philos Rev 3:337–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mansouri M, Lockyer J (2007) A meta-analysis of continuing medical education effectiveness. J Contin Educ Health Prof 27:6–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None for each and every author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario G. Bianchetti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bianchetti, M.G., Bettinelli, A., Fossali, E.F. et al. “Chalk and blackboard interactive 2-day workshop” for pediatricians in training and medical students: preliminary experience. J Med Pers 12, 68–72 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12682-014-0179-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12682-014-0179-0

Keywords

Navigation