Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expectations and Perceptions of Students’ Basic Science Knowledge: Through the Lens of Clerkship Directors

  • Original research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Basic sciences are a cornerstone of undergraduate medical education (UME) as they provide a necessary foundation for the clinical sciences to be built upon and help foster trainees’ competency. However, research indicates that students’ basic science knowledge is not well retained, and as a result, students are ill-prepared, with respect to their basic science knowledge, when entering clerkship. One potential reason why students may not be prepared for clerkship is a lack of understanding as to which basic science concepts are critical for medical students to retain from pre-clerkship. We facilitated interviews with all core UME clerkship directors to establish which basic science concepts they expect students to know prior to each clerkship rotation, along with student’s basic science strengths and areas of improvement. Interviews revealed that students are expected to have some knowledge of every basic science prior to clerkship, with pharmacology being a strong focus, as many specialties deal with common drugs and classes of drugs. Additionally, general anatomy and physiology knowledge were deemed student strengths in two rotations. Clerkship directors focused on perceived areas of improvement more than perceived strengths, with the most prevalent areas being pharmacology, microbiology, and detailed anatomy. These results represent views of clerkship directors from one Canadian institution; however, since clerks rotate through institutions across Canada, this data provides the impetus for creating a national discussion to help foster standardization of UME curricula, with the overarching goal of ensuring all graduates are proficient in the necessary fundamentals as they transition into residency.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flexner A. Medical education in the United States and Canada: a report to the Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching. Carnegie bulletin. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1910.

  2. 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;85:349–55.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Miles KA. Diagnostic imaging in undergraduate medical education: an expanding role. Clin Rad. 2005;60(7):742–5.

    Google Scholar 

  4. McColl GJ, Bilszta J, Harrap S. (2012). The requirement for bioscience knowledge in medical education. Med Journ of Aust. 2012;196(6):409.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Prober CG, Khan S. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1407–10.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Custers EJ, ten Cate OJ. Medical students’ attitudes towards and perception of the basic sciences: a comparison between students in the old and the new curriculum at the University Medical Center Utrecht. The Netherlands Med Educ. 2002;36:1142–50.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harris DE, Hannum L, Gupta S. Contributing factors to student success in anatomy & physiology: lower outside workload and better preparation. Amer Bio Teach. 2004;66:168–75.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Woods NN, Brooks LR, Norman GR. The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis: creating coherence among signs and symptoms. Med Educ. 2005;39:107–12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Norman G. How basic is basic science? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12:401–3.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boshuizen HP, Schmidt HG. On the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts, intermediates and novices. Cogn Sci. 1992;16(2):153–84.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Custers EJ, ten Cate OT. Very long-term retention of basic science knowledge in doctors after graduation. Med Educ. 2011;45(4):422–30.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nouns Z, Schauber S, Witt C, Kingreen H, Schüttpelz-Brauns K. Development of knowledge in basic sciences: a comparison of two medical curricula. Med Educ. 2012;46(12):1206–14.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Woods NN, Brooks LR, Norman GR. The role of biomedical knowledge in diagnosis of difficult clinical cases. Adv in Health Sci Educ. 2007;12:417–26.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Spencer AL, Brosenitsch T, Levine AS, Kanter SL. Back to the basic sciences: an innovative approach to teaching senior medical students how best to integrate basic science and clinical medicine. Acad Med. 2008;83(7):662–9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Smith K. The case for basic sciences in the undergraduate curriculum. Clin Teach. 2010;7(3):211–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pawlina W. Basic sciences in medical education: why? How? When? Where? Med Teach. 2009;31(9):787–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Malau-Aduli BS, Lee AY, Cooling N, Catchpole M, Jose M, Turner R. Retention of knowledge and perceived relevance of basic sciences in an integrated case-based learning (CBL) curriculum. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):139.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kulasegaram KM, Chaudhary Z, Woods N, Dore K, Neville A, Norman G. Contexts, concepts and cognition: principles for the transfer of basic science knowledge. Med Educ. 2017;51(2):184–95.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sivapragasam M. Basic science in integrated curricula. Persp on Med Educ. 2016;5(4):257–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mylopoulos M, Woods N. Preparing medical students for future learning using basic science instruction. Med Educ. 2014;48:667–73.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cutrer WB, Miller B, Pusic MV, Mejicano G, Mangrulkar RS, Gruppen LD, et al. Fostering the development of master adaptive learners: a conceptual model to guide skill acquisition in medical education. Acad Med. 2017;92:70–5.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Norman G. Teaching basic science to optimize transfer. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):807–11.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hopkins R, Pratt D, Bowen JL, Regehr G. Integrating basic science without integrating basic scientists: reconsidering the place of individual teachers in curriculum reform. Acad Med. 2015;90(2):149–53.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D’Eon MF. Knowledge loss of medical students on first year basic science courses at the University of Saskatchewan. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6(1):5.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Weggemans MM, Custers EJ, ten Cate OT. Unprepared retesting of first year knowledge: how much do second year medical students remember? Med Sci Educ. 2017;27(4):597–605.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ling YU, Swanson DB, Holtzman K, Bucak SD. Retention of basic science information by senior medical students. Acad Med. 2008;83(10):82–5.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schneid SD, Pashler H, Armour C. How much basic science content do second-year medical students remember from their first year? Med Teach. 2019;41:231–3.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Custers EJ. Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: a review study. Adv in Health Sci Educ. 2010;15(1):109–28.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Swanson DB, Case SM, Luecht RM, Dillon GF. Retention of basic science information by fourth-year medical students. Acad Med. 1996;71:80–2.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sanson-Fisher RW, Rolfe IE, Williams N. Competency based teaching: the need for a new approach to teaching clinical skills in the undergraduate medical education course. Med Teach. 2005;27:29–36.

  31. Weston WW. Do we pay enough attention to science in medical education? Can Med Educ J. 2018;9(3):109–14.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tokuda Y, Goto E, Otaki J, Jacobs J, Omata F, Obara H, et al. Undergraduate educational environment, perceived preparedness for postgraduate clinical training, and pass rate on the National Medical Licensure Examination in Japan. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10(1):35.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Prince KJ, Boshuizen HP, Van Der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. Students’ opinions about their preparation for clinical practice. Med Educ. 2005;39(7):704–12.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chen CA, Kotliar D. Drolet, BC. (2015). Medical education in the United States: do residents feel prepared? Persp on Med Educ. 2015;4(4):181–5.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Windish DM, Paulman PM, Goroll AH, Bass EB. Do clerkship directors think medical students are prepared for the clerkship years? Acad Med. 2004;79(1):56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wenrich M, Jackson MB, Scherpbier AJ, Wolfhagen IH, Ramsey PG, Goldstein EA. Ready or not? Expectations of faculty and medical students for clinical skills preparation for clerkships. Med Educ Online. 2010;15(1):56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pascual TN, Chhem R, Wang SC, Vujnovic S. Undergraduate radiology education in the era of dynamism in medical curriculum: an educational perspective. Euro J of Rad. 2011;78(3):319–25.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kris-Etherton PM, Akabas SR, Bales CW, Bistrian B, Braun L, Edwards MS, et al. The need to advance nutrition education in the training of health care professionals and recommended research to evaluate implementation and effectiveness. Amer J of Clin Nutr. 2014;99(5):1153–66.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fleiss JL. Levin B. MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. John Wiley & Sons: Paik; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kwan CY. Learning of medical pharmacology via innovation: a personal experience at McMaster and in Asia. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2004;25:1186–94.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wiernik PH. A dangerous lack of pharmacology education in medical and nursing schools: a policy statement from the American College of Clinical Pharmacology. The J of Clin Pharmacol. 2015;55(9):953–4.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Aronson JK. A manifesto for clinical pharmacology from principles to practice. Br J of Clin Pharm. 2010;70:3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ross S, Loke YK. Do educational interventions improve prescribing by medical students and junior doctors? A systematic review. British J of Clin Pharm. 2009;67:662–70.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Harding S, Britten N, Bristow D. The performance of junior doctors in applying clinical pharmacology knowledge and prescribing skills to standardized clinical cases. Br Jour of Clin Pharm. 2010;69:598–606.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:253–9.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ghosh S. Combination of didactic lectures and case-oriented problem-solving tutorials toward better learning: perceptions of students from a conventional medical curriculum. Adv in Phys Educ. 2007;31:193–7.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Harris DE, Hannum L, Gupta S. Contributing factors to student success in anatomy & physiology: lower outside workload and better preparation. Amer Bio Teach. 2004;66:168–75.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Costa ML, Van Rensburg L, Rushton N. Does teaching style matter? A randomised trial of group discussion versus lectures in orthopaedic undergraduate teaching. Med Educ. 2007;41:214–7.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wai J, Lubinski D, Benbow CP, Steiger JH. 2010. Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: a 25-year longitudinal study. J of Educ Psych. 2010;102:860-871.

  50. Maley MA, Harvey JR, Boer WBD, Scott NW, Arena GE. Addressing current problems in teaching pathology to medical students: blended learning. Med Teach. 2008;30(1):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mattick K, Marshall R, Bligh J. Tissue pathology in undergraduate medical education: atrophy or evolution? J of Path. 2004;203:871–6.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wood A, Struthers K, Whiten S, Jackson D, Herrington CS. Introducing gross pathology to undergraduate medical students in the dissecting room. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:97–100.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mann CM, Wood A. How much do medical students know about infection control? J of Hospital Infection. 2006;64:366–70.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Chamberlain NR, Stuart MK, Singh VK, Sargentini NJ. Utilization of case presentations in medical microbiology to enhance relevance of basic science for medical students. Med Educ. 2012;17(1):15943.

    Google Scholar 

  55. de Vries TP. Presenting clinical pharmacology and therapeutics: a problem based approach for choosing and prescribing drugs. Br J of Clin Pharm. 1993;35:581–6.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Vollebregt JA, van Oldenrijk J, Kox D, van Galen SR, Sturm B, Metz JCM, et al. Evaluation of a pharmacotherapy context-learning programme for preclinical medical students. Brit J of Clin Pharm. 2006;62:666–72.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Adams KM, Kohlmeier M, Powell M, Zeisel SH. Nutrition in medicine: nutrition education for medical students and residents. Nutr in Clin Pract. 2010;25:471–80.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Devries S, Dalen JE, Eisenberg DM, Maizes V, Ornish D, Prasad A, et al. A deficiency of nutrition education in medical training. Amer J of Med. 2014;127(9):804–6.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Adams KM, Kohlmeier M, Zeisel SH. Nutrition education in US medical schools: latest update of a national survey. Acad Med. 2010;85:1537–42.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mogre V, Stevens FC, Aryee PA, Amalba A, Scherpbier AJ. Why nutrition education is inadequate in the medical curriculum: a qualitative study of students’ perspectives on barriers and strategies. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):26.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB. Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff. 2008;27:491–1502.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B. Epidemiology of medical error. West J of Med. 2000;172:390–3.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Fallsberg MB, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experiences from Linköping. Sweden Med Teach. 2002;24(3):280–5.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Grande JP. Training of physicians for the twenty-first century: role of the basic sciences. Med Teach. 2009;31:802–6.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ito TA, Larsen JT, Smith NK, Cacioppo JT. Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. J of Personal and Social Psych. 1998;75:887–900.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ken Meadows (Western University) for carefully reviewing the interview questionnaires to ensure our questions were impartial and targeted and providing critical feedback, and the UME clerkship directors at the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry for taking part in the interviews for this research project and providing invaluable information regarding the basic science pre-clerkship curriculum.

Funding

This research was funded by the Government of Ontario (Ontario Graduate Scholarship), and the American Association of Anatomists (Education Research Scholarship).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

    Madeleine E. Norris, Marjorie I. Johnson, Kem A. Rogers & Charys M. Martin

  2. Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

    Mark A. Cachia

Authors
  1. Madeleine E. Norris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark A. Cachia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marjorie I. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kem A. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charys M. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made contributions to the study design, and/or data analysis, and/or data interpretation. Additionally, all authors were involved in drafting and/or editing this manuscript and provided final approval.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madeleine E. Norris.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Norris, M.E., Cachia, M.A., Johnson, M.I. et al. Expectations and Perceptions of Students’ Basic Science Knowledge: Through the Lens of Clerkship Directors. Med.Sci.Educ. 30, 355–365 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00913-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00913-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation