Preview

Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin

Advanced search

Integrated curriculum: a contemporary innovation strategy in medical education

https://doi.org/10.25207/1608-6228-2020-27-4-51-61

Abstract

In its traditional form, medical education begins with learning basic science disciplines, with subsequent transition to clinical training. The basic sciences are taught as a series of separate academic courses, with no coordination applied at the inter-disciplinary level. During past decades, the integrated curriculum has become increasingly popular as a novel instructional strategy that promotes contextual learning in medical practice. The curriculum breaks down the barriers between basic and clinical sciences (vertical integration), interconnects teaching of various basic science disciplines (horizontal integration) and facilitates the acquisition of critical thinking, problem-solving and team-working skills through collaborative learning. The vertical integration is encouraged with training in clinical and communication skills starting in the first semester, teaching basic sciences at the interface with medical problems and involving clinicians in giving lectures on applied anatomy and clinical physiology. In order to facilitate the horizontal integration, basic science disciplines are taught concurrently within interdisciplinary units aligned around the body organ systems. This contributes to a better understanding of complex interrelations between structure and function and stimulates wider insights into mechanisms of the disease. The integrated curriculum supports conceptual learning rather than simple memorisation of fragmented factual knowledge. As such, it relieves the information overload imposed on students due to a rapid growth of medical knowledge in the contemporary world. With the integrated curriculum, the main emphasis is placed on problem-oriented learning guided by an experienced tutor in a small group of students. In this setting, a realistic medical case is used as a trigger for discussion aimed at linking basic science concepts with the clinical problem. Through collaborative problem-solving, students develop a clinical reasoning and team-working skills. Overall, problem-based learning puts forward a student-centred approach in a sense that students themselves are primarily responsible for identifying relevant learning objectives and self-guided acquisition of medical knowledge. This raises their motivation in learning basic sciences and markedly improves the perception of learning environment. In summary, the integrated curriculum offers a number of benefits to medical students and appears to provide an effective instrument in developing professional competencies required in clinical work.

About the Author

O. E. Osadchii
Aalborg University
Denmark

Oleg E. Osadchii — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Assoc. Prof., Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine

Fredrik Bajers Vej 7E, Aalborg 9220
tel.: +45 60 54 72 24 



References

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

2. Cooke M., Irby D.M., Sullivan W., Ludmerer K.M. American medical education 100 years after the Flexner report. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006; 355(13): 13391344. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra055445

3. Koens F., Custers E., Ten Cate O. Clinical and basic science teachers’ opinions about the required depth of biomedical knowledge for medical students. Med. Teach. 2006; 28(3): 234–238. DOI: 10.1080/01421590500271183

4. Bandiera G., Boucher A., Neville A, Kuper A., Hodges B. Integration and timing of basic and clinical sciences education. Med. Teach. 2013; 35(5): 381–387. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.769674

5. Calkins S., Johnson N., Light G. Changing conceptions of teaching in medical faculty. Med. Teach. 2012; 34(11): 902–906. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.720050

6. Densen P. Challenges and opportunities facing medical education. Trans. Am. Clin. Climatol. Assoc. 2011; 122: 48–58.

7. Ahmed K., Ashrafian H. Life-long learning for physicians. Science. 2009; 326(5950): 227. DOI: 10.1126/science.326_227a

8. Pickering G. Against multiple choice questions, Med. Teach. 1979; 1(2): 84–86. DOI: 10.3109/01421597909019397

9. Graffam B. Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning implementation. Med. Teach. 2007; 29(1): 38–42. DOI: 10.1080/01421590601176398

10. Khogali S.E. Team-based learning: a practical guide. Med. Teach. 2013; 35(2): 163–165. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.759199

11. Crosby J. Learning in small groups. Med. Teach. 1996; 18(3): 189–202. DOI: 10.3109/01421599609034160

12. Cox K. Knowledge which cannot be used is useless. Med. Teach. 1987; 9(2): 145–154. DOI: 10.3109/01421598709089928

13. Pallie W., Carr D.H. The McMaster medical education philosophy in theory, practice and historical perspective. Med. Teach. 1987; 9(1), 59–71. DOI: 10.3109/01421598709028981

14. Brauer D.G., Ferguson K.J. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Med. Teach. 2015; 37(4): 312–322. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970998

15. Quintero G.A., Vergel J., Arredondo M., Ariza M.C., Gomez P., Pinzon-Barrios A.M. Integrated medical curriculum: advantages and disadvantages. J. Med. Educ. Cur. Dev. 2016; 3(1): 133–137. DOI: 10.4137/JMECD.S18920

16. Wijnen-Meijer M., ten Cate O., Rademakers J.J., van der Schaaf M., Borleffs J.C. The influence of a vertically integrated curriculum on the transition to postgraduate training. Med. Teach. 2009; 31(11): e528–e532. DOI: 10.3109/01421590902842417

17. Wijnen-Meijer M., ten Cate O., van der Schaaf M., Borleffs J.C. Vertical integration in medical school: Effect on the transition to postgraduate training. Med Educ. 2010; 44(3): 272–279. DOI: 10.1111/j.13652923.2009.03571.x

18. Harden R.M., Laidlaw J.M., Ker J.S., Mitchell H.E. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 7: Task-based learning: An educational strategy for undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing medical education. Med. Teach. 1996; 18(2): 91–98. DOI: 10.3109/01421599609034140

19. Ambrose S.A., Bridges M.W., DiPietro M., Lovett M.C., Norman M.K. How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching. 2010; San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 301 р.

20. Gibbs G., Habeshaw S., Habeshaw T. Improving student learning during lectures. Med. Teach. 1987; 9(1): 11–20. DOI: 10.3109/01421598709028976

21. Richards J.B., Hayes M.M., Schwartzstein R.M. Teaching clinical reasoning and critical thinking: from cognitive theory to practical application. Chest. 2020. 3692(20): 31449. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.525

22. Karakitsiou D.E., Markou A., Kyriakou P., Pieri M., Abuaita M, et al. The good student is more than a listener — the 12+1 roles of the medical student, Med. Teach. 2012; 34(1): e1–e8. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.638006

23. Harden R.M., Laidlaw J.M. Be FAIR to students: four principles that lead to more effective learning. Med. Teach. 2013; 35(1): 27–31. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.732717

24. Harden R.M. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med. Educ. 2000; 34(7): 551–557. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00697.x

25. Harden R.M. AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based education: part 1 — an introduction to outcome-based education. Med. Teach. 1999; 21(1): 7–14. DOI: 10.1080/01421599979969

26. Frank J.R., Snell L.S., Cate O.T., Holmboe E.S., Carraccio C., Swing S.R., et al. Competency-based Medical Education: Theory to Practice. Med. Teach. 2010; 32(8): 638–645. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.501190


Review

For citations:


Osadchii O.E. Integrated curriculum: a contemporary innovation strategy in medical education. Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin. 2020;27(4):51-61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25207/1608-6228-2020-27-4-51-61

Views: 702


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1608-6228 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9544 (Online)