1
IRUS Total
Downloads
  Altmetric

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

Title: 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
Authors: Devine, OP
Harborne, AC
Horsfall, HL
Joseph, T
Marshall-Andon, T
Samuels, R
Kearsley, JW
Abbas, N
Baig, H
Beecham, J
Benons, N
Caird, C
Clark, R
Cope, T
Coultas, J
Debenham, L
Douglas, S
Eldridge, J
Hughes-Gooding, T
Jakubowska, A
Jones, O
Lancaster, E
MacMillan, C
McAllister, R
Merzougui, W
Phillips, B
Phillips, S
Risk, O
Sage, A
Sooltangos, A
Spencer, R
Tajbakhsh, R
Adesalu, O
Aganin, I
Ahmed, A
Aiken, K
Akeredolu, A-S
Alam, I
Ali, A
Anderson, R
Ang, JJ
Anis, FS
Aojula, S
Arthur, C
Ashby, A
Ashraf, A
Aspinall, E
Awad, M
Yahaya, A-MA
Badhrinarayanan, S
Bandyopadhyay, S
Barnes, S
Bassey-Duke, D
Boreham, C
Braine, R
Brandreth, J
Carrington, Z
Cashin, Z
Chatterjee, S
Chawla, M
Chean, CS
Clements, C
Clough, R
Coulthurst, J
Curry, L
Daniels, VC
Davies, S
Davis, R
De Waal, H
Desai, N
Douglas, H
Druce, J
Ejamike, L-N
Esere, M
Eyre, A
Fazmin, IT
Fitzgerald-Smith, S
Ford, V
Freeston, S
Garnett, K
General, W
Gilbert, H
Gowie, Z
Grafton-Clarke, C
Gudka, K
Gumber, L
Gupta, R
Harlow, C
Harrington, A
Heaney, A
Ho, WHS
Holloway, L
Hood, C
Houghton, E
Houshangi, S
Howard, E
Human, B
Hunter, H
Hussain, I
Hussain, S
Jackson-Taylor, RT
Jacob-Ramsdale, B
Janjuha, R
Jawad, S
Jelani, M
Johnston, D
Jones, M
Kalidindi, S
Kalsi, S
Kalyanasundaram, A
Kane, A
Kaur, S
Al-Othman, OK
Khan, Q
Khullar, S
Kirkland, P
Lawrence-Smith, H
Leeson, C
Lenaerts, JER
Long, K
Lubbock, S
Burrell, JMD
Maguire, R
Mahendran, P
Majeed, S
Malhotra, PS
Mandagere, V
Mantelakis, A
McGovern, S
Mosuro, A
Moxley, A
Mustoe, S
Myers, S
Nadeem, K
Nasseri, R
Newman, T
Nzewi, R
Ogborne, R
Omatseye, J
Paddock, S
Parkin, J
Patel, M
Pawar, S
Pearce, S
Penrice, S
Purdy, J
Ramjan, R
Randhawa, R
Rasul, U
Raymond-Taggert, E
Razey, R
Razzaghi, C
Reel, E
Revell, EJ
Rigbye, J
Rotimi, O
Said, A
Sanders, E
Sangal, P
Grandal, NS
Shah, A
Shah, RA
Shotton, O
Sims, D
Smart, K
Smith, MA
Smith, N
Sopian, AS
South, M
Speller, J
Syer, TJ
Ngan, HT
Tadross, D
Thompson, B
Trevett, J
Tyler, M
Ullah, R
Utukuri, M
Vadera, S
Van Den Tooren, H
Venturini, S
Vijayakumar, A
Vine, M
Wellbelove, Z
Wittner, L
Yong, GHK
Ziyada, F
McManus, IC
Item Type: Journal Article
Abstract: 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.
Issue Date: 14-May-2020
Date of Acceptance: 24-Mar-2020
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/106789
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01571-4
ISSN: 1741-7015
Publisher: BMC
Journal / Book Title: BMC Medicine
Volume: 18
Issue: 1
Copyright Statement: © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publication Status: Published
Article Number: ARTN 126
Online Publication Date: 2020-05-14
Appears in Collections:Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction
National Heart and Lung Institute



This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons