The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.
Clinical teaching
Lectures
Medical school differences
Problem-based learning
Self-regulated learning
Teaching styles
Timetables
Tutorials
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 05 2020
14 05 2020
Historique:
received:
06
06
2019
accepted:
24
03
2020
entrez:
15
5
2020
pubmed:
15
5
2020
medline:
16
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL).
METHOD
The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times.
RESULTS
A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content.
DISCUSSION
UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32404194
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01571-4
pii: 10.1186/s12916-020-01571-4
pmc: PMC7222546
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
126Références
BMJ. 1993 Aug 28;307(6903):542-3
pubmed: 8400976
Lancet. 1980 May 10;1(8176):1019-21
pubmed: 6103337
Med Teach. 2004 Nov;26(7):594-8
pubmed: 15763847
Med Teach. 2001 Mar;23(2):123-137
pubmed: 11371288
Lancet. 2004 Jan 10;363(9403):174
pubmed: 14726191
Lancet. 2001 Mar 3;357(9257):699-703
pubmed: 11247568
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1996 Jan;1(1):83-94
pubmed: 24178996
Acad Med. 1992 Sep;67(9):557-65
pubmed: 1520409
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Sep 11;15:146
pubmed: 26362320
Acad Med. 1993 Jan;68(1):52-81
pubmed: 8447896
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Jan 13;17(1):9
pubmed: 28086868
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Mar 13;15:47
pubmed: 25879617
BMC Med. 2008 Feb 14;6:5
pubmed: 18275598
CMAJ. 2008 Jan 1;178(1):34-41
pubmed: 18166729
Med Educ. 1996 May;30(3):179-86
pubmed: 8949551
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 16;14(1):e0198117
pubmed: 30650079
Med Princ Pract. 2009;18(1):1-9
pubmed: 19060483
Med Teach. 2012;34(7):577-86
pubmed: 22746963
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Jan 5;18(1):6
pubmed: 29304801
Br J Med Educ. 1966 Dec;1(1):2-6
pubmed: 4384376
Acad Med. 2007 Jan;82(1):74-82
pubmed: 17198294
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(7):636-41
pubmed: 18236249
Med Educ. 1986 Nov;20(6):481-6
pubmed: 3796328
Int J Surg. 2017 Mar;39:234-237
pubmed: 28167380
Acad Med. 1989 Jun;64(6):285-94
pubmed: 2719785
Acad Med. 1993 Jul;68(7):550-63
pubmed: 8323649
Int J Med Educ. 2015 Sep 19;6:111-7
pubmed: 26385285
Br J Gen Pract. 2017 Apr;67(657):e248-e252
pubmed: 28246097
BMJ. 2004 Jul 10;329(7457):92-4
pubmed: 15242914
Med Educ. 2019 Mar;53(3):285-295
pubmed: 30443996