Spotlight   B-CLR   CHM Program Evaluation   Faculty Development   Hot Off the Press   Resources
 

Shared Discovery Through Learning Communities

Shared Discovery is a fundamental principle of the new curriculum, and the establishment of learning communities is the primary structure for supporting and promoting shared discovery. Learning communities are intentional groups of faculty and students engaged in learning from one another. While learning communities are relatively recent in undergraduate medical education, they have been a part of higher education for over 30 years, having first come to the US in the 1930s.  

 

A survey published this year reported that 66 medical schools had established learning communities and another 29 medical schools were considering them. The rationale is that through intentional small groups, long-term relationships between faculty and students are possible; these relationships can be used to facilitate learning, establish mentoring and coaching, enhance role-modeling and provide educational continuity to the often fragmented lives of medical students and their faculty. This approach represents a logical evolution in the small group instruction characteristic of CHM's curriculum, formalizing an approach that offers students continuous and meaningful relationships with faculty and peers. Learning communities promote active, student-centered learning, and provide a natural model for integrated interdisciplinary education. Proponents of this approach to education report better student outcomes in terms of academic, social and personal metrics. It is a more personalized medical education and promotes shared discovery for students and faculty.

Learning communities are a key structural component of the new curriculum.

For many medical schools, learning communities are the focus of social and wellness activities. A smaller number of schools use learning communities to provide curriculum and support related to professionalism, career advising and leadership development. Still fewer use them as the delivery model for clinical and patient skills education. In many medical schools, students have the same advising faculty members for all four years; the learning communities provide a means of vertically integrating students across years.

 

Learning communities are variously referred to as houses, societies, colleges, cells, docent groups and academic communities. The variability in how learning communities have been implemented and incorporated into the educational programs of their sponsoring medical schools is a testament to the flexibility of the model. The document describing the learning community programs at a sample of medical schools can be accessed here. This document also provides a listing of medical schools participating in the Learning Communities Institute as well as a brief bibliography and other learning community resources.

 

Brian Mavis, PhD 

Associate Professor and Director
Office of Medical Education Research and Development
College of Human Medicine  

Geraud Plantegenest, MA

Manager, Blended Curricular Learning Resources (B-CLR)  

Office of Medical Education Research and Development 

517-353-3455 | plantege@msu.edu     

Student and Faculty Perspectives of the Early Clinical Elective   

 

The third-year clinical curriculum was recently modified to include an elective rotation. The Senior Associate Dean and Block III Director organized a task force to evaluate this new elective and the challenges it poses. With input from the task force, OMERAD conducted a survey of faculty and students participating in the elective.

 

Depending on a given student schedule their elective rotation may come as early as the first clinical clerkship or late in their third-year clinical curriculum. Since various electives may require prerequisite skills gained in specific third-year clinical clerkships, there was a concern students whose third-year elective experience was scheduled early in the year would be limited in the electives they could choose. We were also interested in the views of the faculty who were preceptors for the students, in particular, we asked if the students were adequately prepared and able to participate effectively in the elective.

 

We emailed surveys to 78 students and 54 faculty who participated in third-year elective rotations during the first half of the 2013-2014 academic year. A total of 53 students (68%) and 42 faculty (78%) completed the survey.

 

Summary of the feedback from students

 

Two-thirds of the students were satisfied with the timing of their elective rotation. While only 28% of the students indicated they would have preferred to have had the rotation later in the year, the comments suggest a number of the students were frustrated in attempting to get a rotation they would have liked due to a lack of the required prerequisites. It should be noted that these students all completed their elective rotation during the first half of the academic year. A few students also indicated they would have liked to have had more experience prior to taking their elective.

 

Eighty-five percent of the students were either satisfied or very satisfied with their elective and only 4 of the 53 students indicated they had difficulty scheduling their elective, though some students indicated in the comments they had to go pretty far down their list of choices. A couple of students commented that having to make their selections before beginning the third year before gaining any clinical experience was frustrating.

 

 

Over 70% of the students felt they had adequate prerequisite skills and knowledge to participate in the elective while less than 5% disagreed with the statement.

 

 

About half of the students indicated the experience impacted their career plans. Interestingly, several students commented the elective experience helped them decide they did not want to go into the specialty they had previously wanted to pursue.

 

Summary of the feedback from faculty

 

Seventy percent of the faculty indicated they did have sufficient knowledge of the student's background to be able to provide a meaningful experience for the student while 76% said they were informed that the student taking the elective was in the third year.

 

Approximately three-quarters of the faculty reported students had sufficient knowledge and skill base to benefit from the elective. When asked about prerequisites, 78% said they were "about right" for the elective; 20% indicated there were too few prerequisites. When asked to list prerequisites for the elective, faculty respondents had a wide variety of observations though the most common suggestions focused on completing the general surgery requirement before taking a technical/surgical elective.

 

Conclusions

 

Although the survey results suggest there are some areas that could be improved, it appears that overall the new elective has been well received by both faculty and students.  

B-CLR Showcase 

An interactive gallery featuring examples of CHM blended and online learning projects by B-CLR

 

CHM Educator 

A website with Information to help you teach, whether in a classroom or in a clinic 

 

DR-ED 

A medical education listserv maintained by OMERAD

 

Medical Education Online (MEO)  

Peer-reviewed international open access journal for disseminating information on the education and training of physicians and other health care professionals

 

Vital Signs Newsletter Archive

Click on the link to view past issues of our newsletter

 

Medical Education Scholarship Group

Meets first Wednesday of each month in room A116 East Fee Hall from 1:30 pm-3:00 pm. For questions about this group contact Dr. Brian Mavis: mavis@msu.edu

 

OMERAD Technology Center (OTC)  

Units within the College of Human Medicine interested in sponsoring faculty and/or staff development programs in support of education and scholarship may request use of the room

 

The OTC is located in A211 East Fee Hall. For questions about the OTC contact:

John Williamson (wmsonj@msu.edu)