Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow22

What's the difference ( I know this question is probably asked every year) between cclm and up? And what college admits more people?

Originally Posted by Myuu

That can be very school-dependent. It doesn't seem to work well at schools that don't get behind it fully. We do a hybrid format with 6 hours lecture and 6 hours PBL for the week and the flexibility is actually quite nice. You can use your extra time to find out how you best learn material and then do that, or pursue areas you're particularly interested in in more depth, then discuss it in your PBL sessions if applicable.

The way we do it, we have PBL (which we call IQ) three times per week (MWF). On Monday, we get two clinical vignettes, which we read through and use to make learning objectives that are relevant to both the case and the block. A facilitator who may or may not be a content expert is present with the official learning objectives to make sure we don't go too far off course or drill into meaningless sublevels of detail, but otherwise does not interfere with the process. They make sure to give us plenty of online resources to start looking at, so it's not like they leave you entirely up to your own devices. We then go home (or to the library or whatever works best for you), research the objectives the group came up with, and come back to have a robust discussion of them on Wednesday and Friday. IQ works quite well in this way and should not be used as primary source of learning. Like all parts of our curriculum (lecture included), it is but one of many things that build on each other to create a richer whole. The group discussion can also be a great way of presenting alternative ways of thinking about problems that may facilitate greater understanding of the material.

In summary, IPBL the way we do it.

Originally Posted by Myuu again

Ok, there seems to be a significant difference in what people mean when they say 'PBL'. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem like the people who've 'done' PBL and hate it are attending schools where you occasionally meet in a 'small' group (smaller than lecture, anyway), are introduced to a new problem, and are expected to solve it (investigate it?) while you're sitting there in the 2-3 hour session (or by the next time you meet, which isn't often).

While that strategy may involve a problem, it doesn't seem to involve a lot of learning.

If your school does this, your curriculum is not PBL-based. Think of it as something your school's course directors threw in to make the LCME say "ooh, how progressive" when they do the accreditation dance (or the impress-the-applicants-with-fancy-buzzwords dance). It is a terrible way for most people to learn and I'm not really sure what anyone could possibly get out of it other than a mild to moderate headache and an unhealthy dislike for your facilitator or classmates.

What is a PBL-based curriculum then?

In a PBL-based curriculum (based on my completely scientific sample of n=1, possibly 2, if you count us as two different programs), these small group learning sessions are a primary means of stimulating students to do independent learning. None of that primary information gathering and processing should occur during the discussion, unless someone's not pulling his or her weight (which will be made clear (oh, yes) in the peer feedback that closes every session).

As I've stated before, the way we do it is 2 hours every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. We get two cases in the form of clinical vignettes on Monday, which we go through (with facilitator guidance, if necessary) and determine block-related objectives based on the content of the vignettes. You are not in any way expected (or even advised) to learn or research information during this time. You then leave (if you want) and go do research on the learning objectives based on the suggested resources you've been given (a handful of topic-specific reads) and are free to pick and choose what works best for you so that you retain the information better. Again, the goal is not to force you to read things for the amusement of the faculty, as entertaining as that might be. The goal is for you to learn. By this point, the topic has either already been covered in the lectures or will be the following day (yay, double coverage!). I guess this would be a good time to point out that we have class from 8am until noon, so it's not like you sit through a zillion hours of ritualized low-temp mindnumbing, too.

Having found the information you seek and a way to internalize it that suits you, you return to the group on Wednesday (and Friday for the other case, if the topics suit a split in that manner--they usually do) for a lively discussion on what you've found out. You will find that most, if not all people have found factually accurate information that they could easily regurgitate to you, if prompted. Very rarely is that sort of thing prompted. As a matter of fact, we discourage that. Topics that everyone knows, we make sure to cover, yes, but where the beauty of the system lies in the details and nuances that, despite your academic pedigree, you found confusing. Your classmates may have also encountered difficulties in this or other areas. But, thankfully, within your group of 8-9 students, with their different personalities, different ways of learning, and different life experiences, there is (nearly) always someone (or several) who's understood the topic and can explain/illustrate how it works. The ensuing discussion is where concepts are reinforced and solidified. Sometimes, you're that person. While you might think that you'll just teach everyone, you'll find that verbalizing that information (taking it from one modality and forcing yourself to transform it to another) cements it further in your mind.

In summary: win-win.


(Also, at the university program, all students research all learning objectives. Splitting them up might seem easier, but in the end, I don't think it helps anyone, as you won't learn a topic you haven't researched if you haven't put in the work.)