DFIB Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 As you mentioned you have sparked my interest. Your post always make me think, that is why enjoy reading your comments so much. It is a little disheartening though. Until now I just thought I was AWESOME! Bummer.
AnthonyM83 Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 To be clear, I am talking about a freshman level pathophysiology class. Oh, so I'm assuming it can't be very in-depth, then. I'm taking one now that has anatomy and physiology as pre-reqs, one quarter class, and getting more in-depth than medic school, but not that much more. Overall class time on pathophys topics was less or similar to medic school.
croaker260 Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Uhm, by "exam" are we talking about the NREMT? If so, then perhaps your underlying question is flawed in and of itself. My underlying question is "is the NREMT a fair assessment of a paramedics competence or course success?" I think any experienced paramedic would say "no" ( and to be fair even the NREMT doesn't think so, they intend it to establish the minimum for an entry level brand new paramedic...nothing more). The one advantage of a separate course is that they are very standardized, and I think the variation of quality would be less. Where in the so called integrated approaches your quality would be largely dependent on the instructors, who may or may not be qualified to discuss detailed patho-physiology outside of the paramedic course. Besides, why not do both? Repetition is a key point of learning. And having students with a good foundation makes them better prepared to discuss pertinent physiology on a higher level, hitting the ground running so to speak. So I like the best of both worlds...
chbare Posted November 15, 2012 Author Posted November 15, 2012 I made it clear that I am not talking about the NREMT exam.
Kiwiology Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Good on you for having a look at this mate, it's a topic very near and dear to my heart and I know you feel the same way As has been said, can the people who took the integrated course pass the same exam as the people who took the stand-alone? I think that is a better test, or an even better test is how they can apply the knowledge they have learnt in clinical context of pathophysiology and rationale for signs/symps/treatment etc Certainly I am vehemently opposed to anything other than stand-alone anatomy and physiology taught by a subject matter expert but then again I suppose I only have empiric evidence to support my view. Carry on.
croaker260 Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) I made it clear that I am not talking about the NREMT exam. I looked back, and I see where you mentioned a physiology course, I wouldnt call it "clear", but its not a point worth arguing. I think the point I and others have raised is a valid one. If you are judging the success of the students by passing an exam, any exam..while easy to measure, it may be a fundementally flawed assumption. I guess the first question ou must ask yorself is "What is the goal you are looking for,". Preperation for passing a test, passing a liscensing exam, or success in the field? Obviously one is harder to measure than the other, I will give you that. And one you may have control over, the others you may not. But if you are only measuring success by a single exam, you may be missing the impact of a stand alone course on the "big picture" of the students overall success. So some "food for thought" type of self reflection questions: So what is the " goal" of the class? What are you trying to achieve/instill in the students by requiring the class in the big picture? And it the success (or lack of difference between one group or the other) consitant and reproducable over multiple groups in similar circumstances using the same curricula but differnet instructors? Edited November 15, 2012 by croaker260
chbare Posted November 15, 2012 Author Posted November 15, 2012 I'm not requiring a class for anything. I simply made an anecdotal observation about two groups of students taking the same pathophysiology class. One group had in theory significantly more preparation in the form of an entire year of dedicated A&P taught by a dedicated A&P professor. Additionally, they all had microbiology, a year of English and chemistry. The other group only had the integrated A&P as stated. The results, anecdotal as they may be, challenged a common assertion. Upon researching, I've been unable to find strong evidence supporting said traditional assertions and now I'm putting it to the City. I appreciate the comments, but do not add anything else into this. I'm not making conclusions, changing policy or making mandates. I simply noticed something interesting and am having difficulty scratching the itch it has created. Just to be clear, this was a class that I did not teach and was not involved with it or the instructor.
Kiwiology Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 I think ability to use the information gained in clinical context vs. being able to pass a test is a much better way of evaluating the two methods of teaching personally.
Kaisu Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 Like so much in EMS, there are no studies out there. Opinions, like assholes and everyone has one. It can be very frustrating, especially for those that want to move the profession forward.
AnthonyM83 Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 I appreciate the comments, but do not add anything else into this. The comments we're leaving are attempts to alleviate that itch. Something about the results you got seemed weird to you, so maybe there's a good explanation. Or maybe not...but the more comments you get, the more angles you might find to it...
Recommended Posts