Better Knowledge Retention In Physiology: A Favourable outcome of Vertical Integration
A Favourable outcome of Vertical Integration in Physiology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v4i5.2231Keywords:
vertical integration, integrated teaching, traditional teaching, retentionAbstract
Background & Objectives : In traditional medical curriculum, the main focus is on understanding of physiological concepts; however application, relevance and clinical co-relation of basic knowledge remains uncovered. Therefore retention of basic knowledge by students till later years of clinical exposure is not adequate and hence is seldom applied for patient care. Vertical integration if introduced in physiology can bridge the gap between physiology and clinical subjects, improving knowledge retention and student’s capacity for clinical correlation. A pilot study was undertaken in first year medical students, to study the impact of vertical integration on learning and retention of physiology concepts. Methods: Two topics of endocrinology were taught through traditional and integrated approach to two groups of students with cross over for second topic. In integrated approach, integrated modules were developed and taught by faculties from Physiology, Pathology and Medicine together; whereas traditional approach included usual didactic lectures in Physiology. Knowledge based tests were carried out immediately post intervention (post- test) and after three months interval (repeat post- test). Results Students obtained significantly higher marks in repeat post- test when taught by integrated method than by traditional method (paired t test, p<0.001), implying better knowledge retention in integrated group. Conclusion: There is better retention of knowledge after three months in group that underwent vertical integration. Therefore we recommend introduction of vertical integration along with traditional physiology teaching in first year of medical curriculum.
References
2. Fyrenius A, Silen C, Wirell S. Students' conceptions of underlying principles in medical physiology: an interview study of medical students' understanding in a PBL curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ 2007; 31:364–369.
3. Marieb EN. Human Anatomy and Physiology (5th ed.). San Franscisco, CA: Cummings, 2000.
4. Richardson DR. Comparison of naive and experienced students of elementary physiology on performance in an advanced course. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000; 23: 91–95.
5. Krebs R, Guilbert J. J, Hofer R, & Bloch R. Retention and forgetting of biological facts and concepts, learnt for the first basic science exam, over a two year period. Advances in MedicalEducation (pp. 162–165). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1997.
6. Donovan J. C., Salzman LF, & Allen, P. Z. Patterns of learning in medical school. Journal of Medical Education. 1969; 44(7): 589–594.
7. Alam S. Malik & Rukhsana H. Malik. Twelve tips for developing an integrated curriculum. Medical Teacher.2011; 33: 99–104.
8. Rita Sood, BV Adkoli. Medical Education in India – Problems and Prospects. Journal Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine. 2000; 1(3): 210-212.
9. Vyas R, Jacob M, Faith M, Isaac S, Rabi S, Satishkumar S, Selvakumar D, Ganesh A. An effective integrated learning program in the first year of the medical course. Natl Med J India 2008; 21:21-6..
10. Silverberg, Anne Taylor-Vaisey, John Paul Szalai and Jane Tipping. Lectures, interactive learning, and knowledge retention in continuing medical education. Journal of continuing education in the health professions 1995; 15(4): 231–23.
11. Francis J Real, Heather L Burrows, Kelly F Thomsen. The Effect of Active Learning on Knowledge Retention among Preclinical Medical Students: A New Method for Teaching Pediatric Nutrition. Indianapolis Meeting: Poster Presentation, OMSEP 2012.
12. Rangachari PK. Basic sciences in an integrated medical curriculum: the case of pharmacology. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Prac. 1997; 2: 163–171.
13. Marton F. On non-verbatim learning: I. Level of processing and level of outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 1975. 16 (1): 273–27,.
14. Nayar U, Verma K, Adkoli BV.et al. Inquiry – Driven strategies for Innovation in Medical Education in India : Curricular Reforms. New Delhi : AIIMS, 1995.
15. Bereiter C, Scardamalia M. Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of inert knowledge, In: Chipman SF, Segal JW, Glaser R, editors. Thinking and Learning Skills 2. Hillside NJ: LEA, 1985.
16. Physicians for the twenty-first century. Report of the Project Panel on the General Professional Education of the Physician and College Preparation for Medicine. Ann. Intern Med. 1984; 101(6): 870-872.
17. Barrows H, Peters M, et al. How to Begin Reforming the Medical Curriculum. Springfield, Ill: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, 1984.
18. Neame R. The preclinical course of study: Help or hindrance. J Med Educ. 1984; 59: 699–707.
19. Tosteson DC. New pathways in general medical education. N Engl JMed. 1990; 322: 234–238.
20. Shimura T, Takumi A, Shimizu K, Miyashita S, Adachi K, Teramoto A: Implementation of Integrated Medical Curriculum in Japanese Medical Schools. J Nippo Med Sch2004; 71:11-16.
21. Jamkar A, Yemul V, Singh G. Integrated teaching programme with student-centered case-based learning. Medical Education 2006; 40:466-467.
22. Brynhildsen J, Dahle LO et al. Attitudes among students and teachers on vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Teach. May 2002; 24(3): 286-288.
23. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J. et al. 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. May 2002; 24(3): 280-285.
24. Ebbinghaus H. U¨ber das Geda¨chnis. Untersuchungen zur Experimentellen Psychologie 1966 . Nachdruk der Ausgabe Leipzig 1885. Amsterdam, Netherlands: E. J. Bonset. [English text avaiable at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Ebbinghaus/index.html
