Advertisement

Teaching Pre-clinical Medical Students

  • Jeremy B. Richards
  • Richard M. Schwartzstein
Chapter
Part of the Respiratory Medicine book series (RM)

Abstract

Teaching pre-clinical (or pre-clerkship) medical students primarily, although not exclusively, occurs in the classroom setting. Understanding foundational principles of cognitive psychology and learning theory can help educators develop effective learning objectives, lesson plans, and educational interventions for students, particularly as flipped classroom and active teaching strategies are increasingly expected when teaching students in the classroom. Familiarity with the dual process theory of cognition, as well as the concepts of working memory, interference, and dissonance, is important for educators to be able to develop effective teaching sessions for pre-clinical students. Topics and concepts in pulmonary and critical care medicine are particularly suitable for active teaching strategies, as working through problems and applying knowledge to answer questions are appropriate for many respiratory and critical care topics. Specific strategies for employing active teaching for pre-clinical students in the large group setting include peer instruction, the use of audience response systems, think-pair-share, team-based learning, concept maps, and case-based collaborative learning. In the small- or medium-sized group setting, problem-based learning and case-based collaborative learning are educational strategies that can be used to promote inquisitiveness, self-directed learning, and critical thinking skills. Encouraging students to develop critical thinking skills to effectively assess and begin to answer questions in the classroom will help them to become better clinicians and physicians.

Keywords

Undergraduate medical education Medical students Critical thinking Classroom learning Pre-clinical education Inductive reasoning Clinical reasoning 

References

  1. 1.
    Friesen N. The lecture as a transmedial pedagogical form: a historical analysis. Educ Res. 2011;40:95–102.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hurst JW. The overlecturing and underteaching of clinical medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1605–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture halls without lectures – a proposal for medical education. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1657–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Irby DM, Cooke M, O’Brien BC. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):220–7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bell SK, Krupat E, Fazio SB, Roberts DH, Schwartzstein RM. Longitudinal pedagogy: a successful response to the fragmentation of the third-year medical student clerkship experience. Acad Med. 2008;83(5):467–75.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nelson C. What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Prog Brain Res. 2008;169:323–38.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cowan N, Elliott EM, Scott Saults J, Morey CC, Mattox S, Hismjatullina A, Conway AR. On the capacity of attention: its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes. Cogn Psychol. 2005;51(1):42–100.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matsumoto T. Connectionist interpretation of the association between cognitive dissonance and attention switching. Neural Netw. 2014;60:119–32.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thompson BM, Teal CR, Rogers JC, Paterniti DA, Haidet P. Ideals, activities, dissonance, and processing: a conceptual model to guide educators’ efforts to stimulate student reflection. Acad Med. 2010;85(5):902–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Merriënboer JJ, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):85–93.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    White G. Mental load: helping clinical learners. Clin Teach. 2011;8(3):168–71.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Croskerry P. Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14(Suppl 1):27–35.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sun R. Duality of the mind. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paivio A. Mind and its evolution: a dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bargh JA. The four horsemen of automaticity: awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In: Wyer R, Srull T, editors. Handbook of social cognition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994. p. 1–40.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rylander M, Guerrasio J. Heuristic errors in clinical reasoning. Clin Teach. 2016;13(4):287–90.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Richie M, Josephson SA. Quantifying heuristic bias: anchoring, availability, and representativeness. Teach Learn Med. 2018;30(1):67–75.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Croskerry P. From mindless to mindful practice – cognitive bias and clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(26):2445–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson LW, Krathwohl D. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman; 2001.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jenicek M, Croskerry P, Hitchcock DL. Evidence and its uses in health care and research: the role of critical thinking. Med Sci Monit. 2011;17(1):RA12–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lochithea. Baconian reference book: commentarius solutus. Bloomington: iUniverse; 2009.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang GC, Newman LR, Schwartzstein RM. Critical thinking in health professions education: summary and consensus statements of the Millennium Conference 2011. Teach Learn Med. 2014;26(1):95–102.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yanchar SC, Slife BD, Warne R. Critical thinking as disciplinary practice. Rev Gen Psychol. 2009;12(3):265–81.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coderre S, Mandin H, Harasym PH, Fick GH. Diagnostic reasoning strategies and diagnostic success. Med Educ. 2003;37(8):695–703.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hayes MM, Chatterjee S, Schwartzstein RM. Critical thinking in critical care: five strategies to improve teaching and learning in the intensive care unit. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(4):569–75.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hennrikus EF, Skolka MP, Hennrikus N. Applying metacognition through patient encounters and illness scripts to create a conceptual framework for basic science integration, storage, and retrieval. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2018;5:2382120518777770.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee A, Joynt GM, Lee AK, Ho AM, Groves M, Vlantis AC, Ma RC, Fung CS, Aun CS. Using illness scripts to teach clinical reasoning skills to medical students. Fam Med. 2010;42(4):255–61.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gal B, Rubio M, Iglesias E, González P. Evaluation of participatory teaching methods in undergraduate medical students’ learning along the first academic courses. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190173.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heudebert GR, Estrada CA. Are all teaching activities valued the same? Their relative worth is in the eye of the beholder. South Med J. 2018;111(8):465–9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carvalho H. Active teaching and learning for a deeper understanding of physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33(2):132–3.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chan ZCY. A systematic review on critical thinking in medical education. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2016;30(1).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Daley BJ, Torre DM. Concept maps in medical education: an analytical literature review. Med Educ. 2010;44(5):440–8.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goodstone L, Goodstone MS, Cino K, Glaser CA, Kupferman K, Dember-Neal T. Effect of simulation on the development of critical thinking in asssociate degree nursing students. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2013;34(3):159–62.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shinnick MA, Woo MA. The effect of human patient simulation on critical thinking and its predictors in prelicensure nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(9):1062–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schubert CR. Effect of simulation on nursing knowledge and critical thinking in failure to rescue events. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2012;43(10):467–71.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schneider JR, Sherman HB, Prystowsky JB, Schindler N, Darosa DA. Questioning skills: the effect of wait time on accuracy of medical student responses to oral and written questions. Acad Med. 2004;79(10 Suppl):S28–31.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bligh D. What’s the use of lectures? New York: Jossey-Bass; 2000.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Crouch C, Mazur E. Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys. 2001;69(9):970–7.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sawatsky AP, Berlacher K, Graieri R. Using an ACTIVE teaching format versus a standard lecture format for increasing resident interaction and knowledge achievement during noon conference: a prospective, controlled study. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:129.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jones RW. Learning and teaching in small groups: characteristics, benefits, problems and approaches. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35:587–92.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cain J, Robinson E. A primer on audience response systems: current applications and future considerations. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(4):77.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Linton DL, Pangle WM, Wyatt KH, Powell KN, Sherwood RE. Identifying key features of effective active learning: the effects of writing and peer discussion. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014;13:469–77.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Estes TH, Mintz SL, Gunter MA. Instruction: a models approach. 6th ed. London: Pearson; 2010.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morgan H, McLean K, Chapman C, Fitzgerald J, Yousuf A, Hammoud M. The flipped classroom for medical students. Clin Teach. 2015;12(3):155–60.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Relling AE, Giuliodori MJ. Effect of peer instruction on the likelihood for choosing the correct response to a physiology question. Adv Physiol Educ. 2015;39(3):167–71.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Giuliodori MJ, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Peer instruction enhanced student performance on qualitative problem-solving questions. Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;30(4):168–73.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rao SP, DiCarlo SE. Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000;24(1):51–5.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Trout MJ, Borges N, Koles P. Modified peer instruction improves examination scores in pharmacology. Med Educ. 2014;48(11):1112–3.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vickrey T, Rosploch K, Rahmanian R, Pilarz M, Stains M. Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2015;14(1):es3.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Atlantis E, Cheema BS. Effect of audience response system technology on learning outcomes in health students and professionals: an updated systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(1):3–8.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Efstathiou N, Bailey C. Promoting active learning using audience response system in large bioscience classes. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(1):91–5.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Styers ML, Van Zandt PA, Hayden KL. Active learning in flipped life science courses promotes development of critical thinking skills. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018;17(3):ar39.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Michaelsen LK, Parmelee DX, McMahon KK, Levine RE, Billings DM. Team-based learning for health professions education: a guide to using small groups for improving learning. Sterling: Stylus Publishing; 2008.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Burgess AW, McGregor DM, Mellis CM. Applying established guidelines to team-based learning programs in medical schools: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2014;89(4):678–88.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Richards J, Schwartzstein R, Irish J, Almeida J, Roberts D. Clinical physiology grand rounds. Clin Teach. 2013;10(2):88–93.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Krupat E, Richards JB, Sullivan AM, Fleenor TJ Jr, Schwartzstein RM. Assessing the effectiveness of case-based collaborative learning via randomized controlled trial. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):723–9.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Venance SL, LaDonna KA, Watling CJ. Exploring frontline faculty perspectives after a curriculum change. Med Educ. 2014;48(10):998–1007.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, Gharkholonarehe N, Davidson CA, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, Mumper RJ. The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med. 2014;89(2):236–43.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    McLaughlin JE, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, Davidson CA, Glatt DM, Roth MT, Gharkholonarehe N, Mumper RJ. Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77(9):196.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Roach T. Student perceptions toward flipped learning: new methods to increase interaction and active learning in economics. Int Rev Econ Educ. 2014;17(10):74–84.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Khanova J, McLaughlin JE, Rhoney DH, Roth MT, Harris S. Student perceptions of a flipped pharmacotherapy course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2015;79(9):140.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pettit RK, McCoy L, Kinney M. What millennial medical students say about flipped learning. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:487–97.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Smith JD. Student attitudes toward flipping the general chemistry classroom. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2013;14(4):607–14.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schmidt HG. Problem-based learning: rationale and description. Med Educ. 1983;17(1):11–6.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bate E, Hommes J, Duvivier R, Taylor DC. Problem-based learning (PBL): getting the most out of your students – their roles and responsibilities: AMEE Guide No. 84. Med Teach. 2014;36(1):1–12.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schmidt HG, Rotgans JI, Yew EH. The process of problem-based learning: what works and why. Med Educ. 2011;45(8):792–806.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wood DF. Problem based learning. BMJ. 2003;326(7384):328–30.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hawkins S, Hertweck M, Goreczny A, Laird J. Student expectations of problem-based learning (PBL). Med Teach. 2013;35(6):525.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Al-Azri H, Ratnapalan S. Problem-based learning in continuing medical education: review of randomized controlled trials. Can Fam Physician. 2014;60(2):157–65.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wijnen-Meijer M, ten Cate OT, van der Schaaf M, Borleffs JC. Vertical integration in medical school: effect on the transition to postgraduate training. Med Educ. 2010;44(3):272–9.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Roberts DH, Newman LR, Schwartzstein RM. Twelve tips for facilitating Millennials’ learning. Med Teach. 2012;34(4):274–8.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Smolen P, Zhang Y, Byrne JH. The right time to learn: mechanisms and optimization of spaced learning. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016;17(2):77–88.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Breckwoldt J, Ludwig JR, Plener J, Schröder T, Gruber H, Peters H. Differences in procedural knowledge after a “spaced” and a “massed” version of an intensive course in emergency medicine, investigating a very short spacing interval. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):249.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Weidman J, Baker K. The cognitive science of learning: concepts and strategies for the educator and learner. Anesth Analg. 2015;121(6):1586–99.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Jaffar AA. YouTube: an emerging tool in anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(3):158–64.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Schmidt T. Informal education of medical doctors on the Internet. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;190:92–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy B. Richards
    • 1
  • Richard M. Schwartzstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Harvard Medical School, Shapiro Institute Center for Education, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations