PBL vs. rote

[Guest guest]

Below is the standard scenario in medical training adapted to herbs.

Note in each case, students use books to learn. But if this method was

adopted in the early stage of TCM education, I predict that far more

students would have some herbal fluency by internship. As it is now,

only the exceptional students who typically learn through self

motivation regardless of environment achieve that goal. How many

people on this list would say they learned herbology despite their

training? How many others (perhaps not on this list) would say they

never learned herbology due to an insistence on teaching styles that

does not work for most people. I used to think that my life would be

easier if everyone at PCOM was more like me. Then I decided to do my

job.

 

 

Rote learning:

 

In Herbs 1, you are presented with lists of data (taste, temp, etc.)

and explanations of the associated theory plus tips on memorizing the

data (pnemonics, whatever)

 

You access your books and other study aids (like zoo cards or make your

own databases,etc.) to aid in memorization for testtaking

 

The students take the test and average a 85-90 or better. 3 months

later, only 10% can still pass the exam

 

 

 

PBL:

 

You are given a problem, often a case. The problem has a solution that

requires research.

 

For example, students might compare and contrast an entire category of

herbs to find the best solution for a case (as in real life). This

will involve study of the information in your books about taste, temp,

etc. Exams in herbs 1 have long been case based. Why not the

teaching, as well?

 

Carefully selected cases will be used to induce study of all categories

and even across categories as the course goes on. Everything will be

discussed to insure deep understanding. Representative rx will be

introduced in this context, as well.

 

The students takes the same test as the rote learners above and the

average grade is somewhat lower (80-85), but after 3 months, 90% of

students still pass the retake.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

[Guest guest]

_____

 

 

Sunday, August 22, 2004 12:16 PM

cha

PBL vs. rote

 

 

 

Below is the standard scenario in medical training adapted to herbs.

Note in each case, students use books to learn. But if this method was

adopted in the early stage of TCM education, I predict that far more

students would have some herbal fluency by internship. As it is now,

only the exceptional students who typically learn through self

motivation regardless of environment achieve that goal. How many

people on this list would say they learned herbology despite their

training? How many others (perhaps not on this list) would say they

never learned herbology due to an insistence on teaching styles that

does not work for most people. I used to think that my life would be

easier if everyone at PCOM was more like me. Then I decided to do my

job.

 

 

Rote learning:

 

In Herbs 1, you are presented with lists of data (taste, temp, etc.)

and explanations of the associated theory plus tips on memorizing the

data (pnemonics, whatever)

 

You access your books and other study aids (like zoo cards or make your

own databases,etc.) to aid in memorization for testtaking

 

The students take the test and average a 85-90 or better. 3 months

later, only 10% can still pass the exam

 

 

 

PBL:

 

You are given a problem, often a case. The problem has a solution that

requires research.

 

For example, students might compare and contrast an entire category of

herbs to find the best solution for a case (as in real life). This

will involve study of the information in your books about taste, temp,

etc. Exams in herbs 1 have long been case based. Why not the

teaching, as well?

 

Carefully selected cases will be used to induce study of all categories

and even across categories as the course goes on. Everything will be

discussed to insure deep understanding. Representative rx will be

introduced in this context, as well.

 

The students takes the same test as the rote learners above and the

average grade is somewhat lower (80-85), but after 3 months, 90% of

students still pass the retake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couple of things: 1st where are these stats coming from?

 

2) I definitely agree that PBL is essential but I also think rote is

essential. - It seems that PBL can't cover as much ground- for example on a

given exercise or test one can only test a limited amount of information.

But how does one study for a PBL test -memorization - it is no surprise that

after a PBL test and then reviewing it that students retain that information

(more), but like I said it seems that that info is limited in scope.

 

3) I still am unsure about the resistance to rote memorization. Hanging

around Chinese professors in Denver and in San Diego it was quite obvious

that they don't struggle with trying to recall information. You ask them a

question and they do not hesitate and they can many times quote an exact

classical source or whatever. They do not struggle to pick the right herbs

because it is so ingrained - granted many of them have had 10-50x more

clinical experience writing formulas in hospitals, but I get the impression

that even out of school they had this ability (more or less). They all have

stories about memorizing and memorizing. How can one deny this essential

tool? SIOM cannot supply any proof of superiority of some case based

process because the students are hand-picked cream of the crop. And they

memorize on their own. IF a batch of students is not memorizing on there

own then it is the JOB of the school to make them, IMO, thorough testing. I

also feel that this with zoo cards and other short cuts (leading to

laziness) are only to blame when people can't retain basic herb information.

Granted at PCOM (when I attended) I forgot much of the herb info after herbs

1,2, & 3 (but the testing was atrocious) - but the constant repetition by

myself and later in the program ingrained the herbs. Case based learning

did occur when I was at PCOM but just not at the beginning - but once the

foundation was laid, even though once forgotten, it quickly returned and the

hours of memorization paid off. - Didn't Damone, when he taught herbs I,

just give basically a blank piece of paper and some sample herbs and say

write everything. - I remember students that had his classes where far more

advanced than students later on, and all raved about his classes.

 

So it seems that we need case based tests (to help integrate knowledge) but

also it is fundamental to have the foundation tested thoroughly - to acquire

the building blocks.

 

 

 

Just some thoughts. Comments,

 

 

 

-Jason