PBL vs. Traditional?

General consensus is to avoid PBL unless you KNOW that you would like it. If you are in doubt, steer clear.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un4ULrgVYMY[/YOUTUBE]

Sometimes it's hard to decide whether or not you would like PBL if you haven't had anything like it before. So go based on your learning style. Have you learned the best when you just have straight lectures? Or do you like having a hands on portion where you get to research aspects on your own, dissect something piece by piece, and then teach it to others?

I had an interview where one of my interviewers said that he thinks they should totally do away w/ lecture and do straight PBL. While I think that's a bit extreme, I do like PBL. The things I have remembered the most from a class are things that I have been able to look into more, have been taught by someone else who looked into it more, or have been able to teach it myself.

If you like structure, go for traditional. If you like active learning, go for PBL. Just my $0.02.

Hey, guys,

I was wondering if there is a website out there consolidates whether a school uses didactic learning or problem-based learning?

One other thought: is there a difference between case-based learning and problem-based learning? I heard somewhere that that was the main learning modem.

what consensus on system based curriculum?

I was talking to a doctor a couple of weeks back and he said that you might as well learn via pbl since that is a simulation of what you will be doing once you are practicing in the real world. Whereas lecture based will keep you rooted within the comforts of the undergrad style and present more of a culture shock come third year. I thought it was a pretty valid point.

I think the best program will have aspects of both, and be highly integrated. A lecture based class, where you must memorize info for exams is useful in that you gain exposure to a broad knowledge base. Then in small groups you work on applying that knowledge. Better to learn the more basic, general stuff like anatomy through brute force.

You'll find that most MDs and faculty absolutely love PBL; in theory, it IS the best way to learn medicine since it mimics the thought process you go through as a clinician.

In reality, most students I've met despise it and long for a traditional curriculum. The major problem that plagues PBL is that 1st and 2nd years simply don't know enough medicine or basic sciences yet to effectively analyze a case. Your 3rd and 4th year is basically real-life PBL. In my opinion, your first and second years should be designed to learning the material you need to prepare yourself for that, with as few gimicks as possible.

I'm sure it sucks. The students I've talked to about it say it's a waste of time. PBL prevalence in the curriculum will be a factor for me when choosing between programs.

FYI...this is a sensitive topic (for some unknown reason) and always starts flame wars...It has been discussed many times before...

That being said, I think that PBL, IF DONE CORRECTLY, is a wonderful way to learn. The problem comes in its implementation. The best way to find out is to experience it at that institution first hand. Go sit in if they'll let you. Barring this, talk to current students and see if they like it.

I like it, but it's not for everyone.

Drexel has an interesting scenario since they offer both curriculums, and the students choose which they prefer. They said there is no difference in the Step scores (they would have to drop one of the programs if there was) but the students in the PBL portion do better (initially, not long term) during the all-important 3rd year rotations.

Of course, since the students self-select whether they want PBL or not (most prefer the traditional format), you can not definitively argue that the PBL curriculum, if applied to the entire student body, wouldn't have an effect on the USMLE pass rates or would improve the transition to third year for everyone. Some students might just dislike it too much.

Think about it this way: do you like studying in groups, or do you study by yourself? When you have a question, do you go find somebody to talk it out or do you just look it up yourself? Are you very independent and protective your autonomy? Or do you like to do most things with other people?

I really think a lot of that is the crux of whether you'll like PBL or lectures. With PBL, you'll spend a lot of time with other people working through things, and with lectures it's up to you to put in the time (and you have a bit more flexibility). I'm very much an independent learner so I think I would hate PBL, but other people prefer to learn in groups and I think would really benefit from PBL.

Oh, and Dr Roboto, I love that video.

The thing with PBV vs. Traditional, for most people, is to look for balance.

All PBL schools can be a nightmare. It's just not a particularly time effective way to learn all material. It's a great way to introduce critical thinking and problem solving, but to use it as the primary way to learn the huge amounts of data and theory you get from your first two years? Uh-uh. Folks I know at all PBL schools either spend much higher amounts of time outside of class studying, or are spanked by the boards.

All lecture schools can be a nightmare. If you are uncomfortable with PBL/CBL as a process, you're going to find the clinical years (read: the important ones) a real challenge. You need to work in groups, with peers and patients and residents, to work through problems. Often this is done verbally and in realtime. PBL/CBL is great preparation for this. If you don't have any experience with it in your preclincial years, you can get spanked in rotations.

Go for balance. You may lean one way or the other, but I woud personally avoid schools that didn't have a fair bit of each. If you don't know which way you lean, lean towards lecture.

cuadrado said:

ok, I just picked up on the whole PBL vs. lecture and I have a question. If you go to a school that works through means of PBL are there even lectures??? Do you just sit in a room with other med students and combine your knowledge to solve the problem?? I guess I'm just confused on that part of it

Click to expand...

Different schools do it differently. Most schools mix the two. Some literally just do one or the other. I hadn't heard about Drexel's results mentioned above, but one of the all-PBL schools I know, students had sub-par USMLE's and there was a whole lot of scrambling and test prep done in year two (in lecture format) to ramp up for the Step 1.

Again, that was just one school facing that problem. It may not be the case at most PBL schools.

If you find most folks at PBL-only schools trumpeting PBL and folks at lecture-only schools trumpeting lecture, talk to students who go to mixed schools. My school is mixed and most students lean towards lecture, though I don't know many people that would think it wise to totally eliminate all the PBL. Just a fair bit of it.

is there a consolidated, quick reference list of which schools use PBL and which use traditional lectures? I know it is probably listed in the MSAR but I don't have access to a copy at the moment...

adokotala said:

is there a consolidated, quick reference list of which schools use PBL and which use traditional lectures? I know it is probably listed in the MSAR but I don't have access to a copy at the moment...

Click to expand...

It's not listed in MSAR, but do a search here. Use the advanced search, limit it to Pre-Allo and use PBL as the search term, looking at thread titles only. You'll get bunches.

What are your opinions about organ/systems based curriculum vs. a traditional curriculum where you have separate classes for anatomy, biochem, immuno, etc.?

Quick background: I am currently finishing up an Emergency Medicine residency and will be continuing on to a Trauma and Critical Care Fellowship in July.

I went to Drexel and did the PBL "thing." I was a traditional student (straight out of college) and decided to take the plunge and try something new and different.

I absolutely loved PBL! Granted there are times it is cheesy (like when it is all about group consensus), but overall, I felt it was an excellent preparation for the clinical years. From day one (even though you don't know much), you are starting to form differential diagnoses based on CC (chief complaints) and HPIs (history of present illness). Even today, I feel that I use PBL principles in approaching a brand new patient...

On the down side, I feel my ability to take multiple choice tests did suffer. At Drexel, all the exams in PBL were/are essay based, and so I did very few multiple choice tests until it came time for Step One. Obviously, I ended up doing fine, but I felt a little awkward the first time I took a practice test for Step 1.

If anyone has any questions about PBL or even Drexel, please don't Hesitate to PM me...

utailor2 said:

What are your opinions about organ/systems based curriculum vs. a traditional curriculum where you have separate classes for anatomy, biochem, immuno, etc.?

Click to expand...

Most folks I've talked to prefer organ/systems based.

I go to a school with a traditional based curriculum. I think if you're going to go to a school like this, I'd see if they bothered to do any integration between the courses. At some traditional curriculum schools, you cover the heart through all your courses (histo, anatomy, physio, etc.) then the respiratory system, etc.

Traditional curriculum schools without any integration between the courses screams of old school and probably not the best way to teach medicine.

cuadrado said:

ok, I just picked up on the whole PBL vs. lecture and I have a question. If you go to a school that works through means of PBL are there even lectures??? Do you just sit in a room with other med students and combine your knowledge to solve the problem?? I guess I'm just confused on that part of it

Click to expand...

My school has about 6 hrs of pbl and 6 hrs lecture per week. We do one case per week that parallels what we're going over in lecture. I'd say I avg about 1 hr of pbl prep per session outside of class, and we usually don't stay the entire 2 hr session...its not bad. Overall, I think its probably better than lecture (the way its done here at least), for a few reasons. Lecture in med school is pretty damn inefficient to me...there's just too much info, most of it is not conceptually challenging, which is where lectures might be more helpful, and frankly dimming the lights and throwing some ppts up at 8 or 9 am is really only good at inducing me to yawn. I don't go to lecture, and of course lecture absenteeism is legendary in med school.

PBL can be a pain at times too, but it is a lot more active and I find that the info I learn in there is stuff I don't have restudy near as much for come test time because it sticks so much easier than the stuff acquired from standing in front of a mirror nodding my head back and forth chanting obscure Latin phrases. In fact, the group quizzes we have at the end of each week are probably the best, most accelerated way to learn stuff I've encountered. The quizzes are very tough, and I find they really force us to discuss and think things through...great way to encourage understanding. Its like a 1 hr study group on steroids without the 45 min of college football talk.

I agree with notdeadyet...find a balanced school. The main thing is just how pbl is implemented, because there seems to be a bit of variance among schools, which may partly explain why you see so many different opinions on it.