How can all these comments be understood? do they have anything in common? is there a way to organize things differently?
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Among medical teachers and students, it is common to hear questions about why students are unable to apply the knowledge they acquire throughout their studies to specific, simple cases in everyday medical practice. Sometimes, students complain that they do not perform well on the ECOE (Examen clínico objetivo y estructurado), which consists of a series of stations where clinical skills are evaluated, generally with simulated and standardized patients, because they feel that—even though they “have” the knowledge—they cannot apply it in a clinical interview. Similarly, some clinical teachers notice that students are unable to apply their knowledge of the “basic sciences” to clinical cases, despite the extensive anatomy or physiology courses they have taken, for example. On the other hand, both students and teachers often wonder how much anatomy or physiology they should study.
How can all these comments be understood? Do they have anything in common? Is there a way to organize things differently?
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEEGuide No. 96. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):312-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.970998
Goldman E, Schroth WS. Perspective: deconstructing integration: a framework for the rational application of integration as a guiding curricular strategy. Acad Med. 2012; 87(6):729-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318253cad4
Harden RM. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Educ. 2000; 34(7):551-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00697.x
Ten Cate Olle. Formación médica y evaluación basadas en las competencias: ¿de qué se trata y cómo puede relacionarse con la realidad de la práctica clínica?. Rev. Argent. Cardiol. 2011; 79(5):405-7