First, the learning environment was defined as the context in which curricula – both formal and informal are embedded. Then, the concept of the learning environment was distinguished from that of the learning climate, in line with a distinction recently proposed by Genn in Medical Teacher. Despite the fact that these two terms are still used interchangeably, it is the learning climate or the perception of the learning environment by those who function within it that affects students’ professional development. The learning climate describes an institution’s ethos, or atmosphere. For example, is it stressful, competitive, or supportive? The learning environment refers to readily apparent institutional qualities such as size, the quality of its faculty and students, the number and quality of libraries and laboratories, and the schools’ mission. Though important, these institutional features do not influence students’ learning and professional development to the extent that climate does.

Next, two studies were presented in support of teaching the basic sciences using learner-centered (rather than teacher-centered) learning formats. Both studies demonstrated that when students learned basic science material in the context of relevant patient cases, they came to value its importance for clinical practice and were inspired to develop lifelong learning skills for the basic sciences. Learner-centered formats, such as problem-based and case-based learning in small groups, provided supportive climates that decreased student stress related to mastering the large body of basic science information required for advancement and fostered positive attitudes towards basic science content and basic science teachers. In contrast, students who went through lecture-based, teacher centered basic science curricula perceived the basic sciences as a hurdle to be "gotten over" and became increasingly cynical about their relevance to clinical practice.

A model for collecting and using learning environment data to guide curricular improvement was discussed, based on the speaker’s experience as former director of curriculum evaluation at the University of Michigan Medical School. It was stressed that climate data were essential to quality improvement efforts there and that these were collected using locally developed survey instruments and focus groups. To make targeted curriculum improvements, it was necessary to break down the learning environment into its component parts and survey students about each component. It was also necessary to conduct subgroup analyses of students’ responses to ensure that all students’ concerns were addressed. Identifying subgroups of interest is best left to the institution conducting its assessment.

A take home message was that the influence of faculty student-relationships on students’ perceptions of the learning environment cannot be overstated. The formal presentation ended by reviewing assessment instruments that are available for use by those interested in pursuing their own interests in this area of assessment and inquiry.