 |
 |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Cartwright" Subject: Re: Decline of Anatomy > Lots of points here. First why do we teach like that? > Well for the same reasons I practice evidence based > medicine. There is evidence to support the efficacy of > these teaching methods. Now if you have some great > idea then lets hear it and you can devise a study to > test out your idea. Trial it with a group of students > and let us see the results. However all you have > provided so far is a lot of unsubstantiated comments > about aspects of teaching (like taking questions last) > that you have no evidence to back up. Taking questions > last was the traditional thing when I was at med > school. Are you sure you are not just sticking up for > what you are used too? Certainly I wouldn't say that > was a great innovation or even lateral thinking! OK Fred, I admit it, I'm really the traditionalist, and perhaps you guys are the innovators, but you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater by jettisoning traditional techniques. Like all "change-merchants" you're guilty of abandoning the old methods, including their good aspects, which is tantamount to stifling innovation (albeit in reverse if you see what I mean!). There is some evidence for traditional techniques, admittedly now rather dated and, like much of educational "evidence", it's rather weak. But isn't it reasonable also to make judgements based on rational analysis, or on personal experience? Surely this is valid, not least because there are different styles of learning. So different teaching techniques will appeal to different learners. Besides I hate being told how to do my job by psychologists, whether that be how to communicate with my patients, my juniors or my students. I do however have huge respect for others in my field who do this well i.e. role modelling. Besides many of you have stated how you had some brilliant teachers at med school. My point is simply that traditional methods work well in some hands. Looking at the whole curriculum, I'm very traditionalist. I believe in building the foundations before being let loose on the wards. Several students have written complaining that they were taking histories but not really understanding the process because they hadn't done their pathology yet. I apply the same principles to a tutorial; I start with basics and build towards the complete process. I'm not sure if you need a trial to study this, and I imagine it would be incredibly difficult to trial it properly in any case. Of course a psychologist might have the time...! Adrian