PBL vs Lecture/didactic

Did anyone consider PBL vs. Lecture based teaching styles when choosing which medical schools to apply to? or once having a few accepts chose one type of program versus the other? Any opinions about the two methods of teaching?

Thanks!

Yes, and I prefer PBL with lecture versus only lecture. This did factor into my decision about what school to attend. I did not get into a school with a pure PBL approach, so that was not an option. If you do a search you will find some other thoughts I have on this subject, as well as what others had to say. Sorry, but I'm tired and need sleep right now...

If you still have questions, post them or PM me.

I don't think anyone can confidently say that one curriculum style is better than the other. It really is a matter of preference. From what I hear, there are schools that are PBL heavy that really give very little direction (in terms of learning) to their students. In other words, it feels unstructured and sometimes feels like critical information could be left out. However, I got to sit in on a PBL session, and it was really engaging and more fun. Lecture, on the other hand, is...well, lecture. At almost every med school lecture i sat in on, there were people in the back falling asleep. But the thing is that you feel like you're getting a comprehensive education; information doesn't feel like it's getting left out.

Did the curriculum style affect my decision of where i wanted to go? Not really. I basically looked at how they performed on the boards and decided that way. I also checked out some useful sites that asked students whether they felt that their school adequately prepared them for Steps I and II. I probably would have preferred the traditional curriculum over the progressive just because i'm more familiar with that style (i think we all are). But there's a first for everything!

Hope this helps....i too am getting tired. best of luck though!

PBL sucks. it's very unstructured, and you unfortunately waste a lot of time. real learning takes time (ie - memorize, memorize, memorize), which means lots of reading.

PBL is a great idea...you discuss things in a small group and help each other understand stuff. but the fact is that you need to know the details (for exams, the USMLEs, to be a doctor), and that knowledge can only be gained by lots of reading.

I'm sure someone disagrees...

The advantages of PBL Vs. traditional lecture depend so much on your individual learning style. If you need someone spelling out to you what is important to study you need to go to a lecture based curriculum, but if you get nothing out of lectures and like to research stuff on your own and decide your own pace PBL would probably be better (or traditional and just skip class...). For me, I find PBL gets me interested in the subjects because they are more clinically based and lecture lets me see what the profs think is important for the tests. I couldn't go to a school with just one or the other. I'm not a good self-learner so just PBL would really suck for me, and there is no way I could sit through lecture from 8-5 every day in a traditional curriculum (and my education would suffer from not going). I think most people would be able to do well in a combined curriculum or a traditional curriculum (since they've been learning that way their whole life already!) even if they end up being frustrated with either the PBL stuff or the lectures they should be able to deal with it. If you are considering a mostly PBL program think hard about your learning style and make sure it won't be setting you back. Some people will thrive in a just PBL situation, others will feel disorganized and hate it. I would have done horribly in a school with pretty much no lecture, because despite the fact that I hate sitting through them, I need them in order to learn most easily. I enjoy PBL, but I don't get nearly as much out of it as I thought I would. Also, PBL has required attendance and lectures don't, so even if you find PBL doesn't work for you you still have to attend the sessions. No matter which style you chose a major portion of your learning will be memorization and studying outside of class.

goofygirl

PBL scares me, I personally like to get spoon fed. Give me a set of notes or a syllabus, and tell me to memorize it and I will. Only then well I be able to discuss or debate stuff. Give me a problem w/out any 411 first, I'll just waste to much time looking things up. I might be inclined to just go and ask a doctor in my family what the answer is.

i'm the same way as deuce 007. plus i've worked with some exasparating groups. i've seen first hand a bunch of times when one person doesnt pull his own weight and totally railroads the learning process. plus i really dont mind learning crap on my own. i procastinate all the time and would really rather not have attendance taken like i'm in freaking grade school. jeez - i'm 24 years old, i should be old enough to know when i do and dont need to go to class.

When I was looking at schools, I did look at programs that had some PBL but were not entirely PBL driven. In retrospect, this was a good decision for me. I like PBL as an adjunct to lecture. I needed the structure of the lectures to make sure I covered all the bases, but I liked the interactive nature of PBL to cement some key concepts and to start getting me thinking about how to approach a diagnosis/treatment plan.

Thank being said, it really is a personal decision and you just have to be honest with yourself about how you think you will learn best.

This is a potentially important thread for those people who plan to choose one school over another based on the curriculum, all other factors being more or less equal.

My current opinion is...how can one not choose PBL learning over traditional learning. (i.e. learning to think and operate as a clinician vs. being spoon fed fact, after fact, after fact...)

Originally posted by Brewster
When I was looking at schools, I did look at programs that had some PBL but were not entirely PBL driven. In retrospect, this was a good decision for me. I like PBL as an adjunct to lecture. I needed the structure of the lectures to make sure I covered all the bases, but I liked the interactive nature of PBL to cement some key concepts and to start getting me thinking about how to approach a diagnosis/treatment plan.

Thank being said, it really is a personal decision and you just have to be honest with yourself about how you think you will learn best.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I like having a little bit of lecture (that comes with a good, comprehensive syllabus). Then, after hearing about a topic and reading about it in the syllabus - I like to meet in a small group setting to go over relevant cases, problem sets, imaging, etc. I find that the cases we get in pbl and small group stick with me in a way that memorized facts do not. They kind of take on real life examples (our cases are based on real patients) and as I go on studying and thinking more about something, I have the cases in my mind to refer back to. I am definitely glad that I have both lecture and small group. No lecture would be a bit more stressful for me (I like to hear good lectures). No small group would be really boring (I like learning how to think critically in small group settings that are usually led by amazing physicians).

I'm sorry for intruding...
But can someone thoroughly explain what PBL is?
I'm new to the premed concept and haven't been able to find any statistics from school on their websites about their teaching styles. Thanks in advance!

PBL is Problem Based Learning.

The class is broken up into small groups. Then, with your group, you tackle a problem. The problem is typically a patient presentation. You are given the information in discrete chunks. With each chunk of information, you explore the possibilities and ask questions (about anything...the pathology, the anatomy involved, the physiology, the diagnostic approach, lab tests, treatment options, etc).

Originally posted by Brewster
PBL is Problem Based Learning.

The class is broken up into small groups. Then, with your group, you tackle a problem. The problem is typically a patient presentation. You are given the information in discrete chunks. With each chunk of information, you explore the possibilities and ask questions (about anything...the pathology, the anatomy involved, the physiology, the diagnostic approach, lab tests, treatment options, etc).

Click to expand...

just to add...the people in the group have to research the answers to those questions. Usually the group narrows it down to the most relevant questions and each member gets assigned to research one of those questions. When the group reconvenes(usually the next day or the day after) each member presents their findings(on whatever topic/question they were assigned) to the group. For example...someone may be assigned to research what the MRI shows(assuming an MRI is given for the particular case being investigated). Usually that person will try to find a resident to teach them about the MRI they were given so they can explain it to the group. Then usually a little bit more information is given to the group. More questions arise from the group. Same thing happens with the research etc. until the case comes to a conclusion.

Originally posted by md_student10021
PBL sucks. it's very unstructured, and you unfortunately waste a lot of time. real learning takes time (ie - memorize, memorize, memorize), which means lots of reading.

PBL is a great idea...you discuss things in a small group and help each other understand stuff. but the fact is that you need to know the details (for exams, the USMLEs, to be a doctor), and that knowledge can only be gained by lots of reading.

I'm sure someone disagrees...

Click to expand...

My opinion is that pretty much everyone who gets into med school has the intelligence to go further with PBL than they would with pure lectures. However, some people don't want to do that: it makes sense, really, because most premeds have been training themselves during ugrad how to learn a large volume of information presented through lectures. By the time we all get in, we're pretty darn good at it.

My major is rather unique: Program of Liberal Studies. Each semester one takes a great books seminar... wild but great. You read 3000+ words of THE primary sources for western thought (Homer to Thucydidies to Adam Smith to Dostoyevski etc) in chronological order. The teacher asks challenging questions, but the round table of 10-15 students get little help in finding the answer (only bc we come up with it more times than not.) I know that it has to work differently for med knowledge (there be a lot of facts and arguing over them would be counter productive- i'm actually really really interested to see what it is like), but medicine has long focused on the art (techne for you other classics junkies) of diagnosis. Even if you know all the facts, bringing the correct one to mind at the correct time is a challenge and one which PBL uniquely addresses.

Given that so many schools use it to one degree or another (don't take above as a defence of PBL only- i don't know enough about med school pbl, just commenting on the awesome power of seminar format), i'm sure that most of the obvious kinks - fact assimilation and group dominance by a minority (not race for everyone who has been reading AA forums too much) for example - are more or less worked out.

Does anyone who is studying in a PBL course have any opinions?