The Integrated Curriculum: Call Of Modern Era.

摘要

Recently, in Pakistan, it has been decided to launch integrated curriculum in all public sector medical institutions. However, it has been observed that its overall standard is poor and doesn’t meet the criteria of integration. I shall try to draw attention of readers towards basic parts of an integrated curriculum.  What is an integrated curriculum? What it aims for? Well, Shoemaker 1 defined it as “education that is organized in such a way that it cuts across subject matter lines, bringing together various aspects of the curriculum into meaningful association to focus upon broad areas of study.”  Harden defines integration as “the organization of teaching matter to interrelate or unify subjects frequently taught in separate academic courses or departments”. 2 The purpose of integration is to break the barrier between basic and clinical health science, to promote the retention of knowledge and acquisition of skills via effective teaching strategies, and multidisciplinary approach. An integrated system aims to stimulate the analytical thinking of students, and focuses on their augmented participation. 3 It facilitates contextual meanings and is applied to learn, and can promote the development of the well-organized knowledge structures that underlie effective clinical reasoning. 4 Since early 19’s, the 2+2 pre-clinical - clinical curriculum structure of medical education was broadly acceptable. Many countries still follow this under the name of “traditional system.” Despite vast evaluation in basic and clinical health sciences, the emerging disciplines like population health and robotic health technology demand that a medical undergraduate ought to possess the knowledge, and skills after a thorough understanding of basic anatomy and pathophysiology. 5 This is best achieved by integrating the curriculum. Worldwide, it is gaining popularity and is considered as the sole and vital key in effective delivery of modern health sciences. 6,7 We have to say farewell to the Flexner’s philosophy of didactic education and embrace this system throughout the country. 8 Secondly, only implementing a so-called integrated curriculum will never bring the desirable outcomes, because it needs to be understood to start with. It is not merely making the jig-saw of basic and clinical contents, composing the study-guides and delivering lectures. This is bad for learners. The traditional faculty who is not expert in it, develop modules and implement it. It needs such professionals who have expertise in understanding the various methodologies of integration - the educationists. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, at centurial celebration of the “Flexner Report on medical education”, reported that the problem in developing a curriculum is “not defining the appropriate content but rather incorporating it into the curriculum in a manner that emphasizes its importance relative to the traditional biomedical content and then finding and preparing faculty to teach this revised curriculum”. 7,9 Expert faculty of medical educationist is the backbone of an integrated system of education. They select the right content, integrate it into a module, know every angle and ways of delivering it; and evaluate the learners for their knowledge and skills. Integrated curriculum model (ICM) is a source which fulfil the needs of students via a productive and fruitful way. Few models have been documented for integration of medical education. It was Beane who first introduced the integrated curriculum in 1977 10 and McMaster University, Canada, successfully blended the basic and clinical subjects and implemented as “McMaster Approach” throughout the academic calendar. 6 The most common continuums of methodologies for integration are presented by Harden - “integration ladder” for curriculum planning and evaluation. 11 Brauer DG emphasized upon “spiral curriculum” as an ideal model 6 and Fogarty presented three forms of integrating the curriculum. 12 Proudly