Curriculum Innovation: An Interactive, Case-Based, Multimodal Preclinical Neuroanatomy Teaching Curriculum.

Active learning is increasingly promoted in nursing education as a student-centred and andragogical approach that enhances engagement, competence, and clinical reasoning. However, limited qualitative evidence explores how students and educators experience active learning and its influence on learning outcomes within real educational contexts. To provide a comprehensive description of how active learning strategies influence learning outcomes and educational experiences among undergraduate nursing students and educators, and to identify multilevel factors shaping their implementation. A qualitative descriptive design was employed. Four focus groups were conducted with purposively selected undergraduate nursing students and educators from the Faculty of Nursing at the Arab American University-Palestine (n = 17). Interviews were conducted in Arabic, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis with NVivo to identify patterns across participants' perspectives. Trustworthiness was ensured through reflexivity, reflective journaling, and member checking. Five themes emerged. Participants described exposure to diverse active learning strategies, including team-based learning, simulation, case-based learning, flipped classroom activities, peer learning, and gamification. Active learning was perceived to enhance confidence, engagement, knowledge retention, and clinical reasoning. However, its effectiveness was shaped by multilevel conditions, including learner readiness, psychological safety, instructional facilitation, classroom dynamics, and institutional support. Educators further conceptualized active learning as an andragogical process involving intentional instructional design, experiential learning, and reflective feedback practices. Active learning was experienced as a meaningful approach that supports competence, engagement, and professional preparedness. The findings highlight the importance of psychologically safe learning environments, structured facilitation, and institutional readiness in shaping the implementation and sustainability of active learning in undergraduate nursing education.

Western University Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry.

BackgroundComputer-assisted learning (CAL) has the potential to enhance learning outcomes and satisfaction. However, there are limited reports in the literature that describe or evaluate the implementation of this method to promote competency-based learning in removable partial denture (RPD) design. Therefore, this study aimed to: (1) compare the effectiveness of different learning methods using a 3D software-aided RPD design program, (2) evaluate the learning outcomes associated with these different methods following active learning, and (3) assess students’ satisfaction.MethodsForty undergraduate dentistry students were divided into four groups of ten students. Each group was assigned different learning methods for a period of 28 days using the CMU-3D RPD Design program. The learning methods included lecture-based learning (LBL), case-based learning (CBL), a combination of LBL and CBL, and a control group that did not engage in LBL or CBL. Following this period, participants in all four groups engaged in active learning activities related to RPD design. Learning outcomes were measured three times: prior to the experiment, after using the software, and after participating in active learning activities.ResultsAnalysis of pre- and post-training assessments using multiple-choice questions revealed that dental students in the combined LBL and CBL group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in test scores compared to baseline (p < 0.05). Notably, there were marked enhancements in comprehension, application, and analysis skills. Outcomes following active learning were significantly improved in groups with a foundation in lecture-based learning. Furthermore, all groups reported high levels of satisfaction (over 90%) after utilizing the software and participating in active learning activities.ConclusionsComputer-assisted learning, combined with active learning strategies, improves learners’ outcomes and satisfaction. Learning RPD design through computer-assisted methods positively influenced learning outcomes, particularly when both lecture-based and case-based learning approaches were used. Active learning strategies resulted in more substantial improvements when applied to students with a strong foundation in lecture-based learning.

The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University.

In a flipped classroom, students learn basic concepts before class, allowing them time during class to apply newly gained knowledge to problem sets and cases. Harvard Medical School (HMS) has introduced a form of flipped classroom, called case-based collaborative learning (CBCL), during preclinical curricula. Finding few published resources, the HMS Academy's Peer Observation of Teaching Interest Group developed a guide for observations and feedback to CBCL facilitators. After conducting an extensive literature search, speaking to flipped classroom methodology experts, and observing 14 facilitators using CBCL methods, the interest group identified specific teaching behaviors that optimize student interaction and knowledge application. The group next engaged in several rounds of the modified Delphi method to develop the CBCL peer observation worksheet and compendium and then tested these materials' effectiveness in capturing CBCL teaching behaviors and providing feedback to CBCL faculty facilitators. Seventy-three percent of faculty rated the worksheet and compendium as extremely helpful or helpful in identifying new teaching techniques. Moreover, 90% found the CBCL peer observation and debriefing to be extremely helpful or helpful, and 90% were extremely likely or likely to incorporate peer suggestions in future teaching sessions. Medical schools have begun to embrace flipped classroom methods to eliminate passive, lecture-style instruction during the preclinical years of the MD curriculum. This tool identifies specific in-classroom approaches that engage students in active learning, guides peer observers in offering targeted feedback to faculty on teaching strategies, and presents consensus-based resources for use during CBCL faculty development and training.

BackgroundTwo established small-group learning paradigms in medical education include Case-based learning (CBL) and Team-based learning (TBL). Characteristics common to both pedagogies include the use of an authentic clinical case, active small-group learning, activation of existing knowledge and application of newly acquired knowledge. However, there are also variances between the two teaching methods, and a paucity of studies that consider how these approaches fit with curriculum design principles. In this paper we explore student and facilitator perceptions of the two teaching methods within a medical curriculum, using Experience based learning (ExBL) as a conceptual lens.MethodsA total of 34/255 (13%) Year 2 medical students completed four CBLs during the 2019 Renal and Urology teaching block, concurrent to their usual curriculum activities, which included weekly TBLs. Questionnaires were distributed to all students (n = 34) and CBL facilitators (n = 13). In addition, all students were invited to attend focus groups. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.ResultsIn total, 23/34 (71%) of students and 11/13 (85%) of facilitators completed the questionnaires. Twelve students (35%) participated in focus groups. Findings indicate their experience in CBL to be positive, with many favourable aspects that built on and complemented their TBL experience that provided an emphasis on the basic sciences. The learning environment was enriched by the CBL framework that allowed application of knowledge to solve clinical problems within the small groups with consistent facilitator guidance and feedback, their capacity to focus discussion, and associated efficiencies in learning. ConclusionWhile the TBL model was integral in developing students’ knowledge and understanding of basic science concepts, the CBL model was integral in developing students’ clinical reasoning skills. The strengths of CBL relative to TBL included the development of authentic clinical reasoning skills and guided facilitation of small group discussion. Our findings suggest that delivery of a medical curriculum may be enhanced through increased vertical integration, applying TBL in earlier phases of the medical program where the focus is on basic science principles, with CBL becoming more relevant as students move towards clinical immersion.

An Innovative Blended Learning Preclinical Hematology Curriculum on White Cell Dyscrasias: A Mixed Methods Study of Student Performance, Satisfaction, and Engagement

BackgroundEducational research highlights active approaches to learning are more effective in knowledge retention and problem-solving. It has long been acknowledged that adapting to more active ways of learning form part of the challenge for new university students as the pedagogical distance between the didactical approach largely followed by secondary school systems the world over differs quite significantly from the often more student-led, critical approach taken by universities. University students encounter various learning challenges, particularly during the transition from secondary school to university. Poor adaptation and low performance in the first year of tertiary education can lead to higher failure rates and potential withdrawal from study programmes. Adopting active learning strategies early in this transition phase is crucial for supporting students’ adaptation and success.Gaining student engagement with active learning can be a significant challenge when there is an expectation to participate in a discussion or voice an opinion. Case-based learning (CBL), with its scaffolded form of learning, is an approach that could provide the support needed to help multicultural learners adapt to their new learning environment in a non-threatening classroom-based setting. The research question in this study was: what features of CBL support active learning?MethodsData was collected using Structured Group Feedback Sessions (SGFS) from 36 students from 12 different countries. Students were placed in eight Structured Group Feedback sessions, a method that facilitates structured discussions and is effect in curriculum evaluation and feedback. The Experience Based Learning model was used as the conceptual framework to guide the analysis, which was completed using the framework analysis method.ResultsThemes were derived from the Experience Based Learning model: affective, pedagogical, and organisational and analysed according to the research question. We found CBL can be used to facilitate active learning with all students at a multicultural medical university. We identified six learning points to highlight features of CBL that support active learning: CBL increased contact with peers and facilitated student bonding; students need to feel psychologically safe to participate; prior learning can enhance confidence to participate; facilitators need to be aware of their role, know about psychological safety, and manage student participation including the dominant voice; some students have a lower tolerance of uncertainty and need additional clarity at the end either via the facilitator or additional notes that provide the key learning points to take away; students became more engaged when a case is aligned to a real patient case giving it authenticity.ConclusionsThis study explores how CBL can support active learning in a multicultural medical school. We identified that CBL did facilitate active learning and students engaged with it and enjoyed it. We identified six learning points to support others going forward.

In the ever-evolving landscape of higher education, the traditional lecturebased approach is being reimagined to accommodate the diverse needs and aspirations of today's learners. However, in today's rapidly evolving educational landscape, educators are increasingly recognizing the limitations of passive learning approaches and embracing active learning strategies to better engage the modern learner. This chapter explores the transition from lectures to active learning and innovation in higher education, shedding light on the transformative potential of these pedagogical strategies in shaping the future of learning. It also aims to highlight the benefits, challenges, and best practices associated with this transformative pedagogical approach. Active learning encompasses a spectrum of instructional methods that actively involve students in the learning process, encouraging them to construct knowledge, solve problems, and apply concepts in real-world contexts. From flipped classrooms and peer instruction to problem-based learning and collaborative projects, a wide range of active learning techniques offer educators versatile tools to create dynamic and interactive learning environments. Several active learning strategies are portrayed in the framework of transformative education and constructivism, such as case-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, STEM project-based learning, dilemma-teaching pedagogy, and other teaching models. It explores the use of ICT integration such as through augmented reality, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence. It also fits into the theme of understanding students as customers. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The chapter further focuses on several factors related to higher education, as well as active learning and innovative ideas applied during the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. It also discusses traditional and modern teaching methodologies in higher education. The online teaching/learning initiatives applied by Indonesia and India are also explained, along with the future of higher education with active learning and innovation. It also presents the case studies of Indonesian and Indian universities for engaging students as modern learners with active learning strategies emphasizing the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and thereafter.

Background The transition from theoretical knowledge to clinical competency in operative dentistry is an ongoing challenge in dental education. Undergraduate students often face a significant gap between understanding theory and applying practical skills for diagnosing and preparing cavities, which leads to decreased confidence, increased stress, and potential errors in clinical practice. Case-based learning (CBL), an active learning strategy that emphasizes real-world scenarios, has shown promise for improving clinical skills and knowledge retention in other healthcare disciplines. This pilot study explored the potential of CBL to address the theory-practice gap and enhance confidence among undergraduate dental students in performing cavity preparations. Methods This pilot study utilized a pre and post-intervention design and involved 30 second-year dental students. Participants completed confidence surveys at three points: before CBL activity, immediately after CBL activity, and following their first clinical cavity preparation procedure. The CBL activity consisted of two components: interactive case discussions and hands-on laboratory exercises designed to simulate real-world dental procedures. The interactive discussions focused on diagnostic and treatment planningwhile laboratory exercises provided practical experience in cavity preparation. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess the changes in confidence levels across the three survey points. Results CBL significantly increased students' confidence across multiple dimensions (p < 0.05). Confidence in modifying cavity preparations increased from a mean of 2.91 (SD = 0.292) before CBL to 5.12 (SD = 0.331) post-CBL and further to 5.52 (SD = 0.556) after clinical practice. Similarly, confidence in understanding the basic concepts of caries removal improved from 4.82 (SD = 0.528) pre-CBL to 5.45 (SD = 0.564) post-CBL, and to 5.61 (SD = 0.556) post-clinic. However, confidence in performing cavity preparations without faculty guidance remained relatively low, increasing from a baseline mean of 2.67 (SD = 0.478) to 2.91 (SD = 0.384) post-CBL and 3.64 (SD = 0.603) post-clinic. Conclusion Incorporating CBL into the curriculum can significantly improve undergraduate students' confidence in performing cavity preparation. This approach may help bridge the theory-practice gap and better prepare students for the clinical environment. This pilot study provides promising initial data, and further research is needed to determine the long-term impact of CBL and the optimal implementation strategies.

Medical Education Program Highlights The University of Michigan Medical School (UMMS) was founded in 1850. For much of its existence, the curriculum followed a traditional Flexnerian model. Over time, the preclinical curriculum shortened, and the clinical curriculum lengthened. In 2016, the curricular structure inverted. A 17 + 12 + 12-month model transitioned to a 12 + 12 + 17-month model to provide a robust integrated foundation with early clinical immersion, followed by an expanded postclerkship phase for impact-focused work and deliberate professional and leadership development. The new curriculum consists of a “trunk” and “branches,” in honor of the oak trees for which Ann Arbor is named. See List 1—Program Highlights. Curriculum Curriculum description The preclinical phase, the scientific trunk, consists of 12 months of foundational learning focused on basic and health system sciences. The core clinical phase, the clinical trunk, consists of the 1-month Transition to Clerkships course and 12 months of departmentally based clinical clerkships. The advanced phase, the professional development branches, is 17 months of required and elective activities. Longitudinal courses are integrated across all 3 phases. See Supplemental Digital Appendix 1—Curriculum Overview—at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A890. Scientific trunk The scientific trunk comprises 6 integrated blocks. Normal functioning is taught concurrently with pathophysiology in a single-pass curriculum. Disciplines (e.g., anatomy, pathology, pharmacology) are threaded throughout all or portions of the year. Basic science content is longitudinally integrated with other courses (e.g., as students learn about the cardiovascular system, they simultaneously learn to perform a cardiac history and physical exam in the Doctoring program). In the scientific trunk, instruction occurs through a combination of lectures (~50%), small groups (~30%), labs, standardized patient (SP) interactions, patient presentations, tutorials, and online modules (~20% combined). Clinical trunk Transition to Clerkships prepares learners to think deeply about basic science connected to clinical care through case-based learning and multiple SP assessments. The clerkships include internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics–gynecology, family medicine, psychiatry, neurology, and surgery and applied sciences. Learning on clerkships primarily occurs through immersion on inpatient and outpatient care teams. Clerkship didactics supplement clinical learning using a variety of pedagogies (e.g., flipped classroom, simulation, lecture, case-based learning). Three specific initiatives emphasize foundational science in the clinical phase: applied sciences—a 4-week rotation during surgery comprising anatomy, radiology, pathology, and pathophysiology; Science and Practice of Medicine—a longitudinal, case-based learning course on core and cutting-edge science topics; and Health Systems Science—a 1-week course on health disparities, ethics, quality improvement (QI), patient safety (PS), and value-based care. Professional development branches The branches constitute the third and final phase of the UMMS curriculum. Students select 1 of 4 branches: Patients and populations (primary care, population health, patient-centered medical homes, longitudinal clinic experience) Systems- and hospital-based care (hospitalized patients, health systems, QI, PS, value-based care) Procedure-based care (patients requiring diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, technical and nontechnical skills) Diagnostics and therapeutics (technologies to diagnose and treat disease; disease-based electives) The branches aim to ensure clinical excellence, so learners are “ready day one” for residency, while providing flexible, individualized professional development pathways to launch students on impact-focused careers. Students can pursue any elective or residency from any branch. A branch advisor helps learners align their schedule with professional goals. Students use abundant elective time to engage in research or other scholarly pursuits. Branches culminate in specialty-specific residency preparatory courses containing high-yield topics for incoming interns, using a number of pedagogies. Longitudinal elements Doctoring is a 4-year longitudinal clinical skills and coaching program. Small groups are cotaught by 2 physician faculty. One serves as the primary instructor/assessor and the other serves as a coach, helping learners reflect on competency development, work–life integration, professional identity formation, and well-being. Chief Concern is a 1-year longitudinal clinical reasoning course teaching students how to think through clinical problems. Health Systems Science, leadership, and interprofessional education (IPE) are also 4-year longitudinal threads. The Health Systems Science course involves the study of health policy, disparities, ethics, value-based care, and QI/PS. The Leadership Development Program strives to produce physicians who will become leaders and change agents. Students develop a personal mission, vision, and values statement and attend skill-building sessions, then apply their skills in the classroom, clinic, and extracurricular settings. The IPE thread includes a unique early clinical experience where students observe practicing health professionals caring for patients, as well as classroom and clinic-based experiences with other learners. The Paths of Excellence are optional scholarly concentrations in which ~80% of the student body participates. Students choose from ethics, global health and disparities, health policy, innovation and entrepreneurship, medical humanities, PS/QI/complex systems, scholarship of learning and teaching, or scientific discovery. Learners engage in small-group didactic sessions to deepen knowledge and build community and receive 1:1 mentorship on a capstone. The Capstone for Impact is a longitudinal experiential project aimed at creating new knowledge and/or delivering a solution, improvement, or innovation to a real-world issue, requiring sustained self-directed learning with guidance from advisors and mentors. Examples of capstones include research on postcholecystectomy opiate prescribing practices, a podcast on the Detroit water shortage, and invention and marketing of a “neovent” (an affordable neonatal bubble continuous positive airway pressure device for resource-poor settings). Curriculum changes since 2010 Triggered by a charge from the dean to better prepare learners as leaders and change agents of the future, in 2015, the faculty voted for a sweeping curricular transformation made up of 8 elements: scientific trunk, clinical trunk, branches, Paths of Excellence Program, Leadership Development Program, IPE, M-Home learning community, and competency-based assessment. The first 6 elements have been described above. The M-Home emphasizes connections, community, personal authenticity, and meaning and purpose to enhance well-being and work–life integration. The M-Home is organized into 4 houses, serving as the anchor for Doctoring small groups, where personal and professional support is provided by a network of peers, counselors, faculty, and directors. The approach to assessment transitioned from a higher-stakes, course/clerkship-based model, with a heavy emphasis on medical knowledge, toward a competency-based model, with frequent lower-stakes assessments across multiple competency domains. While students still have graded courses on their academic transcript (exclusively pass/fail in the preclinical phase, mostly honors/high pass/pass/fail in the clinical phase), overall progression through the curriculum is assessed through the lens of competency development. Assessment The medical school identified and reviewed competencies from multiple sources (e.g., ACGME objectives, the Physician Competency Reference Set) and constructed 8 UMMS competency domains, 6 aligned with ACGME objectives. Leadership, teamwork and interprofessionalism, and critical thinking and discovery were added to complete the vision of the new UMMS graduate. See Supplemental Digital Appendix 2—Program Objectives and Assessment Methods—at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A890. Organizational and structural changes were implemented to support the shift toward competency-based medical education (CBME). A robust electronic learning outcomes dashboard was developed to capture multisource competency assessment data and present them visually, facilitating review and decision making. Data include quantitative measures, Likert-scale assessments of competency development, and narrative descriptions. Competency development is monitored by Competency Committees, with broad representation from faculty, allied health professionals, patient advocates, and student services. These committees follow matriculating cohorts longitudinally and holistically review all students multiple times to ensure appropriate development in all competency domains, and identify support for students. Students have full access to their data, and periodically perform self-assessments, guided by coaches. Identified competency assessment gaps are progressively being filled with novel assessments. For example, assessment of the capstone projects focus on harder-to-assess domains such as practice-based learning and improvement, leadership, teamwork and interprofessionalism, and critical thinking and discovery. Traditional assessments have been reorganized to support learning. Students now take the USMLE Step 1 examination after the clerkships, to foster deep learning of the scientific underpinnings of clinical medicine. Multiple SP-based assessments have been dispersed across the first 2 years to provide frequent, low-stakes assessment and feedback. A postclerkship multistation clinical assessment guides students’ branches work and preparation for USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills. We are exploring competency-based, time-independent progression through the postclerkship phase, which may facilitate time-variable completion of the MD degree in the future. Pedagogy Overall, we decreased lectures and labs and increased active learning, case-based learning, online modules, simulation, and SP encounters. Several courses are made up almost entirely of active learning (e.g., Doctoring, Chief Concern, the Leadership Development Program, IPE, Transition to Clerkships, Science and Practice of Medicine). Clinical experiences Students are first exposed to patients in fall of year 1 as part of IPE. Learners are fully immersed in clinical care by September year 2. The majority (~85%) of core clinical experiences occur at Michigan Medicine hospitals. Students also rotate at 2 large urban health care centers, 2 neighboring community hospitals, and the Veterans Administration. The balance of inpatient and ambulatory experiences is roughly 65:35. A 12-month longitudinal clinic is required in the patients and populations branch where students work with the same preceptor, often encountering the same patients. Curricular Governance Curricular governance is overseen centrally by the Curriculum Policy Committee (CPC) and its 5 curricular subcommittees. Competency Committees (CCs) assess competency development and monitor academic progress. CPC and CCs report directly to the Executive Committee (EC). Elected student representatives serve on all committees, except for the EC, reflecting a core value of partnering with learners. See Figure 1—Curricular governance structure.Figure 1: Curricular governance structure.Education Staff Medical education leadership The Office of Medical Student Education (OMSE) plans, implements, evaluates, and oversees all aspects of the medical student program. The associate dean and senior director for medical student education oversee 4 central units and the M-Home, each collaboratively led by faculty (assistant dean or director) and a staff director. The OMSE sits within Medical School Administration, led by the executive vice president for medical affairs/dean. See Figure 2—Academic affairs organizational chart.Figure 2: Academic affairs organizational chart.Curricular leadership and faculty with significant teaching roles are supported by direct salary offsets from the OMSE. Smaller teaching roles are compensated via educational value unit-mediated funds flow to departments. In addition to the OMSE, UMMS has the Department of Learning Health Sciences (DLHS), a first-in-the-nation basic science department focused on the sciences related to learning. DLHS is organized around 4 collaboratives (education, simulation, infrastructure, and implementation) to support academic and research efforts. Key offerings include the Medical Education Scholars Program (that introduces faculty to educational design and scholarship) and a competency-based Master of Health Professions Education. Faculty Development and Support in Education The Office of Faculty Development offers more than 100 unique courses annually to meet the continuing education needs of faculty. Leadership programming and coaching are notable strengths. Two communities of practice support health sciences education. The first is the Academy for Educational Excellence and Scholarship. With over 400 members, the Academy helps augment the educational rigor and innovation of its faculty by bringing the community together to discuss important topics and engage in peer development and mentoring. The second is RISE (Research. Innovation. Scholarship. Education.), which aims to develop and implement innovative and potentially transformative education ideas. Members receive personal innovation coaching, including instruction on change management. Faculty educational efforts are recognized in promotion and tenure decisions. The promotion criteria for the clinical track were recently revised, and a clinician–educator pathway was delineated. The definition of scholarship was expanded beyond peer-reviewed manuscripts to include book chapters, innovative teaching practices, educational modules, curriculum development, and patient and community education, among others. Initiatives in Progress As a public institution, UMMS is committed to both innovation and continuous QI to improve the health of patients and society. Three initiatives in progress will continue to guide our work: Fully actualizing the CBME vision, by expanding assessments of all 8 competencies and leveraging big data to make judgments. Time variability and effective educational handovers to residency programs are future goals. Enhancing well-being and improving the learning environment by adopting system-wide cultural transformation strategies toward kinder, civil, and health-supporting values. Growing communities of practice in health sciences education (e.g., RISE) that emphasize both bold innovation and responsible change management, to tackle the big issues facing medical education, and the needs of society. List 1 Program Highlights 12-month foundational science curriculum (scientific trunk) Normal and abnormal systems taught side by side in single-pass curriculum 12-month core clinical clerkships (clinical trunk) Early clinical immersion (September of year 2) Basic science emphasis (Science and Practice of Medicine course; surgery and applied science clerkship) Postclerkship USMLE Step 1 examination 17-month postclerkship phase (professional development branches) Tailored professional development (branch advisor helps design schedule) Pursue impact-focused work, Capstone for Impact deliverable Residency prep courses (specialty specific) Longitudinal elements 4-year clinical skills and coaching program (Doctoring) Health Systems Science course, Leadership Development Program, and interprofessional education Clinical reasoning course (Chief Concern in year 1) Paths of Excellence (scholarly concentrations), most enter in spring of year 1 M-Home learning communities Competency-based medical education Learning outcomes dashboard (multisource assessment data) Competency committees, holistic review Expanding programs of assessment for all competencies

Background :Teacher-centered education dominates dental education in China. This report introduced the redesign of an orthodontic course previously delivered in a traditional lecture format into a case-based and student-centered learning format that focuses on improving students’ ability in clinical problem-solving and decision making skills.Methods :Thirty five dental students at the fourth year of a five-year B.D.S. program met in a ten-period series of seminars. Case details with relevant diagnostic records were provided to each student ahead of time. A diagnostic worksheet was used to guide students through the analytical process to develop the diagnosis and treatment plan. Students took turns leading the discussion at each seminar. Instructors served as facilitators and evaluators. Following the last session, a questionnaire was distributed to each student to evaluate the case-based learning program.Results :Responses from students revealed that the case-based orthodontic course was well received. Students commented favorably upon improvement in the aspects of problem lists, diagnosis and treatment planning.Conclusion :It was our initial attempt of using case-based learning format often used in postdoctoral dental education as a curriculum innovation in undergraduate orthodontic education. Our pilot investigation indicated that CBL is worthy of wide use and could be applied in multilevel dental education to develop the dental student's knowledge and skill in comprehensive patient evaluation and diagnosis in preparation for treatment planning.

Background: Traditional teaching in microbiology is largely lecture-based, leading to passive learning and limited student engagement. To enhance understanding and motivation, active learning strategies such as CaseBased Learning (CBL) can be introduced. Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of case-based learning compared to didactic lectures and to assess students’ perception toward this method. Methods: A total of 70 volunteer students from the 2nd Professional M.B.B.S. were enrolled after informed consent and randomly divided into two groups (A and B, 35 each). Group A underwent Case-Based Learning, further divided into smaller groups of 11–12 students, while Group B attended traditional lectures on the same topic. Validated clinical cases, post-test MCQs, and a feedback questionnaire were used for evaluation. Faculty were sensitized and trained for CBL sessions. Learning outcomes were assessed through post-test performance and feedback analysis. Results: Students exposed to CBL showed higher engagement, improved understanding of microbiology concepts, and better problem-solving skills compared to those attending lectures. Feedback revealed that CBL increased student interest, promoted active learning, and improved teacher–student interaction. Conclusion: Case-Based Learning is an effective student-centered teaching method in microbiology. It enhances motivation, understanding, and application of concepts and should be incorporated as a regular component of undergraduate medical education.

Loma Linda University School of Medicine.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the need for change from passive instructional approaches to active learning strategies and to provide theoretical frameworks, information, and tools to guide a next-generation leader in the process of changing the organizational culture through active learning. An overview of active learning, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning will be presented. Several specific forms of active learning will be explored in detail: Case-Based Learning (CBL), Problem-Based Learning (PBL), and Team-Based Learning (TBL). The overlapping characteristics among the approaches will be presented, along with the distinctive features of each approach. Assets and limitations will be discussed, along with specific examples and techniques. Outcomes from research on active learning strategies will be summarized. Considerations for determining active learning strategies that are the best fit for particular learners, instructors, and content areas will be examined.