Medical Science Educator

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 108–116

Faculty Assessment of an Innovative Approach to Medical Education

  • Frederic N. Schwartz
  • Mara L. Hover
  • Marjorie Kinney
  • Lise McCoy
Short Communication



The Clinical Presentation (CP) Model and inductive reasoning process is an innovative approach to undergraduate medical education delivery used at A.T. Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine in Arizona (ATSU-SOMA). Embedding cohorts of students into community campus settings during the second, third and fourth year is equally as innovative and a unique model for training future physicians that fosters contextual learning.


We investigated faculty impressions of the CP Curriculum (CPC), inductive reasoning process and the early contextual learning experience. Electronic surveys were sent to 36 Mesa campus faculty and 23 Regional Directors of Medical Education (RDME) at each of the 11 National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) affiliated Community Health Campuses (CHC’s) in nine states.1 A total of 40 respondents (68%) completed the survey.


Seventy percent of faculty respondents indicated that they “Completely Understand or “Understand Very Well” the CP Model as a teaching tool. Ninety-five percent of respondents stated they understand the application of “inductive vs. deductive” processes as they apply to medicine, and 88% expressed that they understood at least “Somewhat” how to use the CP Model to arrive at a diagnosis in “real life”. More than half (53%) indicated that placing the medical student in the contextual learning campus beginning in year 2 is the “right idea that is implemented at the right time”.


Since about half of faculty surveyed indicated that they understand the inductive reasoning aspect of the CP Model very well or well, additional faculty development training is warranted. In the classroom, 70% reported including clinical presentation schemes 80–100% of the time during instruction. Clinical faculty were statistically significantly more likely to indicate that placing the medical students in the community health clinic settings at the beginning of their second year is the right idea at the right time.


Clinical Presentation Curriculum Contextual Learning Distance Learning Community Medicine Medically Underserved Population Inductive Reasoning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. l.
    National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC). Workforce — Future of Medical Education. Retrieved May 12, 2011 from
  2. 2.
    Mandin, H et al. Developing a “Clinical Presentation” Curriculum at the University of Calgary. Academic Medicine, Vol 70, No. 3 March 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zwet J van der, Zwietering PJ, Teunissen PW, Vleuten CPM van der, Scherpbier a JJ a. Workplace learning from a socio-cultural perspective: creating developmental space during the general practice clerkship. Advances in health sciences education: theory and practice. 2011;16(3):359–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooke M, Irby DM, O’Brien B. Educating Physicians: a Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eva, K. W. (2005). What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Medical education. 2005;39(1):98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowen JL. Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. The New England journal of medicine. 2006; 355(21):2217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Woloschuk W, Harasym P, Mandin H, Jones A. Use of scheme-based problem solving: an evaluation of the implementation and utilization of schemes in a clinical presentation curriuculum. Medical Education. 2000; 34(437–442).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mclaughlin K, Coderre S, Mortis G, Mandin H. Teaching and learning in medicine expert-type knowledge structure in medical students is associated with increased odds of diagnostic success. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2007;(October 2011):37-41.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Srinivasan M, Wilkes M, Stevenson F, Nguyen T, Slavin S. Comparing problem-based learning with case-based learning: effects of a major curricular shift at two institutions. Academic Medicine. 2007;82(1):74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson, M. B., & Kanter, S. L. Medical education in the United States and Canada, Academic medicine. 2010;85(9 Suppl):S2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sunal DW, Hodges J, Sunal CS, et al. Teaching Science in Higher Education: Faculty Professional Development and Barriers to Change. School Science and Mathematics. 2001;101(5):246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merriënboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review. 2005;17(2):147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel VL, Arocha JF, Zhang J. Thinking and Reasoning in Medicine. In: Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004:1–34.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coderre S, Mandin H, Harasym PH, Fick GH. Diagnostic reasoning strategies and diagnostic success. Medical education. 2003;37(8):695–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shahabeddin, S.P., Shirazi-Beheshtiha, S. H., Aslani, F., Taghdiri, M. R., Abadiyeh, R., & Tsai, T.-C. Developing a clinical presentation curriculum in veterinary education: a cognitive perspective. Comparative Clinical Pathology. 2011.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwartz FN, Hover M, Kinney M, McCoy L. Student assessment of an innovative approach to medical education. Med Sci Educ 2012; 22(3): 102–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederic N. Schwartz
    • 1
  • Mara L. Hover
    • 1
  • Marjorie Kinney
    • 1
  • Lise McCoy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Family and Community MedicineA.T. Still University, School of Osteopathic Medicine in ArizonaMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations