Several preconceived notions were presented to the 35-40 participants who came from a variety of disciplines and countries. These included: lab hours are being cut to conserve student contact hours and to cut education costs; and that laboratories are valuable, although labor intensive. An audience survey revealed that, in general, lab hours are being cut to streamline the curriculum. (Often under the guise of giving the students more time to study on their own.) However, there was no consensus that, at present, monetary pressures are the primary reason to cut or eliminate laboratories. Further discussion emphasized that at some institutions, basic science laboratories are used and supported by clinical education needs. In other institutions, curricular challenges have resulted in different disciplines banding together to maintain laboratories. Interestingly this is providing new opportunities for exploring curricular integration scenarios in the laboratory. The presenters indicated that many laboratory sessions simply reinforce lecture information while faculty answer student questions; this often results in low student attendance and satisfaction. In order to justify laboratories to students and “administrators”, the presenters suggested a plan of action: each laboratory session must have a well-defined set of objectives and goals so those laboratories become vehicles to teach students critical problem solving and diagnostic skills. Most laboratory concepts can be presented as clinical cases that will help engage the students while they master the material. Students must be held responsible, via testing mechanisms, for applying the concepts learned during laboratory sessions. A common theme throughout this IAMSE meeting was the need for student exposure to the “humanistic” qualities of medicine. Interactive, critical-thinking, laboratories provide a perfect setting for student-faculty interactions that can teach (or role-model) empathy, ethics, and other humanistic qualities physicians should possess. This positive reinforcement of the “unwritten” curriculum is perhaps the greatest reason to maintain, or increase, the number of laboratory hours. In light of the above, discussion shifted to how CD-ROM’s and computer programs should be used in the laboratory. It was agreed that to maintain a desirable level of faculty-student interaction, computer programs and simulations should be an adjunct to, not a replacement for, laboratories. Discussion concerning the use of live animals for laboratories was enlightening. Live animal use is very rare in medical/osteopathic/chiropractic schools, and is being considered for elimination in at least one school of veterinarian medicine. Although many of the participants looked back fondly on their use of live animals during their undergraduate and/or graduate laboratory sessions, many felt that computer simulations were now just as good. In summary, laboratory hours are valuable because of faculty-student
interactions that enhance “humanism”. Laboratories can be made more
effective by ensuring that clearly defined goals and objectives are established
for each session. Clinical scenarios should be used to teach critical
thinking skills via practical application of the didactic knowledge base,
and students must be held accountable for the laboratory information.
Finally, it was suggested that IAMSE should be a proactive advocate to
inform and educate administrators of medical schools regarding the value
(and the valuing) of teaching whether in the lecture or laboratory setting.
|