Modeling integration: co-teaching basic and clinical sciences medicine in the classroom

Abstract

Purpose

Calls for revision in undergraduate medical education frequently cite the importance of integrating basic and clinical sciences and the use of active pedagogies. One under-appreciated approach to accomplishing both is interactive co-teaching, defined as two instructors with complementary expertise engaging students and each other instead of lecturing. This study sought to determine if interactive co-teaching helped students integrate and learn basic and clinical sciences, as well as to explore potential advantages and barriers to co-teaching.

Methods

The comparative success of solo- and co-teaching in a microbiology/infectious disease course was determined by surveying student perceptions at the end of the course and examination scores for questions based on either solo- or co-taught content. The advantages and barriers to co-teaching were explored by thematic analysis of student responses to open-ended survey questions.

Results

Results suggest that co-teaching supported content integration as a significant majority of students (92%, n=112) reported they understood the connection between basic and clinical sciences better when content was co-taught. In addition, a plurality of students indicated that co-teaching provided a better overall learning experience (81%, n=99), was more engaging (74%, n=90), and made it easier to apply content (74%, n=90). These positive perceptions were reflected in better exam outcomes for materials covered in co-taught over solo-taught sessions.

Conclusion

Results suggest students value co-teaching as a means to integrate basic and clinical sciences. However, interactive co-teaching pedagogies require careful planning and collaboration among faculty. Co-teaching requires the commitment of both faculty members to this pedagogy.

Keywords:

• team teaching
• microbiology
• infectious disease
• shared teaching
• content integration
• session integration

Supplementary materials

Figure S1 Faculty evaluation.

Figure S2 Shared teaching survey.

Table S1 Evaluation of teaching performance

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr Elisabeth Schlegel and Dr Judith Brenner for helpful discussions and critical reading of this manuscript.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflict of interest in this work. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.