Interdisciplinary Teaching of Pharmacology and Genetics: Comparing Two Different Active Learning Models in Medical School
Authors: Coffin Vicki L. , Siracusa Linda D. 
Published: April 2020

Scientific advances in the fields of pharmacology and genetics are rapidly shaping diagnostic procedures and treatments, enabling implementation of precision medicine. Interdisciplinary collaborations are key to delivering the most up‐to‐date knowledge in medical school and optimal collaborations can involve active learning throughout the teaching session. The challenge was to bring together two disciplines, pharmacology and genetics, in the first year of medical school and actively engage students in one of two active learning methods. We compared the integrative process in creating two sessions from the instructor’s perspective and the comments and outcomes of students following each of the different active learning sessions.

Active learning is an approach to instruction that helps students stay engaged during class by applying their knowledge for higher order thinking and problem solving. To work successfully, active learning requires that students: 1) study materials by learning prior to the session, or 2) recall knowledge learned previously in earlier sessions, or 3) a combination of both. We delivered a two‐hour active learning session entitled “Targeted Cancer Therapies”; this topic covers cutting‐edge concepts and essential principles of interdisciplinary work in pharmacology and genetics. We designed and compiled pre‐work, to be read prior to either active learning session, that jointly integrate knowledge from these disciplines. The “Targeted Cancer Therapies” session was taught by two methods: 1) standard Team‐Based Learning (TBL), and 2) mini‐lectures interspersed with group problem solving, called Large Group Active Learning (LGAL). The multiple choice and application questions posed to medical students were similar for both sessions. Both models included students working in groups to answer questions and then whole class discussion was employed to debate and justify their answer choices.

From the instructor’s point of view, finding concise and current pre‐work was the most challenging, and therefore we created our own materials and supplemented from other sources. In addition, we felt that the LGAL model allowed for additional impromptu questions, the material to be covered more in depth, and the assurance that the whole class had a similar experience on how and why the final answer was obtained. A significant difference between these methods from the student’s perspective was that for TBL, resulting scores counted towards students’ final grades whereas for LGAL, answering questions successfully in class was its own reward. Student comments reflect these differences between methods and focus on the unique benefits of each approach. We will summarize the highlights of the materials used, our perspective of the process, and a compilation of students’ feedback.

We conclude that: 1) transformation of materials from a TBL into an LGAL can be a straightforward process for instructors, 2) both methods have positive outcomes for students, and 3) different active learning methods allows for flexibility within medical schools’ constantly changing curriculums.

Support or Funding Information

Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University, Department of Medical Sciences, Nutley, NJ, USA