![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Background: Running a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum has been considered to be more expensive than a traditional Subject-Based Curriculum? This claim has not been well substantiated.
Aim: To identify faculty educational activities (FEA) related to PBL, calculate its cost (faculty number and time) and compare it with a traditional Subject-Based Curriculum.
Methods: A structured questionnaire was developed through focused group discussion using a Delphi method to identify FEA and ensure face and content validity. For cost comparison, a hypothetic model was developed based on “what if” the curriculum was traditional subject-based, and running within the frame of the current regulations of University of Sharjah.
Results: A total of 23 faculty (16 full-time basic medical sciences and 7 clinical tutors) equal to 19.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) responded to the questionnaire. About five major domains and 26 sub-domains of FEA were identified.
The calculated number of faculty needed for the hypothetical Subject-Based Curriculum should have been 19 FTEs. The average FEA hours per faculty per week per student in PBL was 17.41 and for the Subject-Based Curriculum would have been 17.85.
Conclusion: PBL does not require an increase in number of faculty. The time spent by faculty on educational activities was similar in the two curriculum models. Although the cost of two strategies was similar, but the educational roles and the faculty engagement in education in a PBL curriculum is broader than in the traditional curriculum.