5 ms·

Another one bites the dust. This is a trend/fad that will likely be reversed once properly studied. My wife went to a medical school that had recently adopted

Another one bites the dust. This is a trend/fad that will likely be reversed once properly studied. My wife went to a medical school that had recently adopted so-called "active learning" techniques. All the students secretly hated them, but wouldn't share this feedback with higher-ups (academic administrators) because med students, as a group, are generally rule-following, adaptable students. The "non-lecture" format was frequently derided by students, in private settings, as "Dr. Wikipedia". That is, they were learning medicine by using Google and visiting Wikipedia pages. Because they had to collaborate on their own learning materials, even though they had no background in medicine. About 50% of students I knew (secretly) spent thousands of dollars on recorded medical lectures to supplement the completely ineffective class "group activities", and thus did well on the tests (and USMLEs) anyway. They never reported this to professors or administrators. Again, they were "working around" the broken "active learning" system. One of the hilarious side effects of this: the supposedly "objective peer-reviewed studies" of this learning style won't show score/testing degradation -- because the students are so self-sufficient that they work around the failing format with supplemental lecture materials purchased online! Thus, they still achieve the grades they hope, and the administrators think the system is "working"! There was, however, a very small subset of students who preferred the "active learning" format. Most of the time, these were students who came into med school with a stronger science background than others (e.g. had basically started studying medicine before they got there). One reason they particularly enjoyed the format: they could skip class with little effect on their grades.

evolve2017 9y ago
This is definitely a trend but it is one I do not suspect will change any time soon. Just to put things in perspectives for people who have not experienced medical school: > 50% of students I knew (secretly) spent thousands of dollars on recorded medical lectures While this may be indeed be true for the students you know, this is also a common practice, in general. The pay-to-play nature of board exam preparation has existed much longer than the active-learning trend. There's no way to know whether these students would have purchased additional materials in another educational system. > thus did well on the tests (and MCATs) anyway. You seem to be conflating a couple of things. The MCAT (the Medical College Admission Test) is taken before medical school. There, just as for later examinations there has been a proliferation of prep materials, for which students pay dearly. This is in no way related to curriculum change in medical schools. Again, you are correct that students who pay more do better. > "objective peer-reviewed studies" of this learning style won't show score/testing degradation -- because the students are so self-sufficient that they work around the failing format with supplemental lecture materials purchased online I understand the sentiment, but if students do better after the adoption of this new system, aren't they learning better? Eventually, medical students move from Wikipedia to more authoritative sources like UpToDate or primary literature. If they, themselves, are motivated to expand their knowledge - and as a result do better on tests - this intervention would have been beneficial. I think you're implying that the huge industry behind medical test preparation materials is new, but this is decidedly not the case.
- pixelmonkey 9y ago
  I enjoyed your comment. To respond to a couple points: > MCATs are taken before medical school Sorry, that was just a brain malfunction on my part. I meant to write "USMLEs" (residency admission exam for match process). Corrected my comment to state that. > "but if students do better after the adoption of this new system, aren't they learning better?" They are not doing better under the system. They are doing the same, or marginally worse. But I believe the students are more stressed, and getting less value per student debt dollar, due to the "active learning" trend. They are also less prepared for the USMLE and less prepared for residency than they would otherwise be. But they are substituting personal effort for their loss of solid foundational instruction. A really good study would give students half their topics in lecture style and half in active learning style, and measure time spent and topic on "supplemental" learning outside of class.
mahyarm 9y ago
Why do you even need a med school with these types of students
- epmaybe 9y ago
  To be completely honest, as someone in medical school right now you definitely don't "need" the structure and materials that medical school lecturers and courses provide for those first two years. I however needed the structure and did not have the work ethic to do it on my own. Additionally the next two years of clinical learning most definitely require you to be at the hospital.
  - fifteenforty 9y ago
    A professor of medical education once said to us something along the lines of 'The half life of the facts we tell you is about 6 years, so the actual content isn't necessarily that important. What is important is the language and that you learn to understand what you hear and read after you graduate. 5 years after graduation, I feel like I am only starting to truly appreciate that comment. I started medical training 11 years ago, and half of the stuff I read in books during first year was probably already known to be wrong. The lectures we received were biased and incomplete, but they provided a largely up-to-date picture and, more importantly, a story.
    - epmaybe 9y ago
      The story definitely matters, I agree. But if you're good at making that story up as you read the book, why bother coming to class? I'd also argue that not everything is completely out of date. Only things like cytology or genetics and autoimmune disorders from what I can gather. Pathology is largely the same, as in the manifestations don't really change. You can get by studying a First Aid board review book from a few years ago and still pass step 1. Physiology doesn't really change, only treatments targeting the pathophysiology. Medical Schools largely understand that everyone studies and learns differently and that's why they don't mandate you come to lectures. They're recorded for your own benefit as well. My professors would also provide several different learning methods throughout the preclinical courses to really hammer in those mainstay concepts regardless of how you learn. Be it quizzes, or team based learning, or straight lecture.
MengerSponge 9y ago
You should know that "what students like" and "what constitutes effective instruction" can be very different. https://fnoschese.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/khan-academy-and-the-effectiveness-of-science-videos/ https://fnoschese.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/khan-academy-and-... The simplest description is this: Consider two videos. One is a clear lecture (eg Khan Academy style), while the other is a dialogue between a character who espouses the common misperception, and a teacher who illustrates their mistakes. After watching the videos, you have students evaluate how well they think they know the material, how they feel about the video, and then you test them on how well they learned the concept covered by the video. The lecture video had the following results: - Highly rated video clarity - Increased confidence in knowledge - zero change in knowledge (tested) That is to say, students liked the video and thought they learned something, but didn't actually learn anything. The dialogue video, on the other hand, was almost the opposite: - video was considered confusing (not at all clear) - decreased confidence in knowledge - large positive change in knowledge (tested) Students, it would seem, don't know enough to be able to evaluate what is good instruction. (cf Dunning & Kruger)
- pixelmonkey 9y ago
  I think you are right. But I haven't seen anywhere near a consensus that active learning constitutes an improvement. The reason large academic institutions are moving in this direction is because they are threatened by MOOCs and because administrators are often trained at business schools who love this learning style, mainly because most the content in business school is beside the point anyway.
  - rndmize 9y ago
    I'm going to have to disagree. Here's my default article I turn to on the matter - http://www.npr.org/2012/01/01/144550920/physicists-seek-to-lose-the-lecture-as-teaching-tool http://www.npr.org/2012/01/01/144550920/physicists-seek-to-l... . The problem, up until the advent of MOOCs, was there was no incentive for higher education to improve. Prices go up every year, more instruction is dumped on post-docs and adjuncts instead of professors, but the number of people going to college continues to increase. Why improve your product if people keep buying it regardless? And this idea of active learning is nothing new. Maria Montessori did extensive research on effective teaching methods more than a hundred years ago and moved more and more heavily to small projects and physical interaction as the most effective means of instruction. http://www.infomontessori.com/sensorial/visual-sense-binomial-cube.htm http://www.infomontessori.com/sensorial/visual-sense-binomia... I happen to like the binomial cube as an example, because it takes a confusing, "just memorize FOIL" type of concept and turns it into something you can directly interact with to develop a much clearer understanding. And of course, there's things like this: https://xkcd.com/1356/ https://xkcd.com/1356/ Or the explorable explanation that was on the front page the other day about game theory and trust: http://ncase.me/trust/ http://ncase.me/trust/ Or Brett Victor's classic Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction: http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/ http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/ The ability to interact with a model blows traditional educational methods out of the water as far as gaining serious understanding (imo), and I expect this type of instruction to only grow in importance as time goes on.
pragone 9y ago
I would characterize that experience, instead, as very, very poorly implemented. A properly implemented "active learning" environment simply puts the impetus on the students to be pro-active. Whether that's buying outside materials, or requesting a lecture from a professor, or simply meeting with a professor to clear up misunderstandings, the students are the ones who start that process. Of course, that's all reliant on the students being informed of this process from the outset. There should be some kind of structure, and I imagine, if there are exams, there is some kind of structure, for the students to be following. There should be required textbooks as well, so that resources are consistent. And, of course, there needs to be unbiased feedback to improve the system. Also, even lecture-based students spend thousands of dollars on outside material. And doing so isn't a "secret". At least $300-400 is spent by each medical student for the arguably "required" board prep materials, completely disconnected from how they learned in the first two years.
- pixelmonkey 9y ago
  You might be right. It's certainly possible there are "great" active learning programs out there, and my anecdotal experience is definitely just that -- anecdotal. (And even, second-hand.) That said, I've personally experienced great teaching supplemented by great lectures, and I've not personally experienced great active learning. I studied computer science and philosophy undergrad. I had great professors and not-so-great professors in each. The excellent ones had excellent lectures that I still think back on today, years later. Plus, as a typical programming auto-didact, I learn a ton from recorded lectures/talks on YouTube and similar channels. I wouldn't trade these resources for the world. I can remember a handful of classes that had more of a group/collaborative feel to them. I don't think I'd describe any of them, in retrospect, as "successful" classes. I remember one, in particular -- an algorithms class -- where the professor had just done a long sabbatical in Japan and was trying to cargo cult the group/collaborative learning techniques he witnessed there in his algorithms class, yielding hilarious (and definitely not effective) results. That was the one class where I had to pull an all-nighter at the library, cramming from Sedgewick's "Algorithms" textbook (which wasn't assigned by the professor, but every student had passed around as the right way to learn this stuff) and the odd Wikipedia page. All this effort to pass the final exam -- because I felt like I had spent an entire semester witnessing an educational experiment, rather than learning anything. I imagine many people are in the same boat as me in terms of their experience levels here. Lots of experience with successful lectures, very little experience with successful group learning environments. Certainly, lots of experience with good and bad teaching all-around, where "style" doesn't seem to be the critical issue. I am afraid too many of these institution-wide shifts to "active learning" are being made on little more than well-intentioned hopeful faith.
mncharity 9y ago
> This is a trend/fad that will likely be reversed once properly studied. Err, no. It's quite clear that traditional lectures work poorly, even when they are well done and well liked. And that active learning, when well done, is unambiguously better. However, it's also clear that doing active learning well, takes a lot of instructor training, preparation, and practice. So deploying it is a known problem, with it's own research. Though there's some work on doing hybrids, lectures with sort of a "sing along" question-response, with an effectiveness in between, but easier to train for and deploy (at least for big introductory classes). Which isn't to say that I don't facepalm and think "we need to be doing so much better than this", even when watching active learning at MIT, with its years of instructor and institutional experience across several departments. And even as VR/AR transforms education, something like active learning seems likely to remain a key component. After all, good ways to learn something include practice it, discuss it, and teach it.
- pixelmonkey 9y ago
  "traditional lectures work poorly, even when they are well done and well liked" Just reflect for a moment on this general statement. You are saying traditional lectures -- a format used for millennia in education of every professional and technical class of society across multiple continents -- "work poorly". And, we are meant to believe that "active learning" -- a new teaching style that throws away the lecture entirely and replaces it with group participation from students -- is, on the average, better. Now imagine if I said this... "deep reading of books written by leaders in their field/discipline, even when those books are well-liked, work poorly." How credible a claim could someone then make that "active reading" -- a new teaching style where we eschew books altogether and instead write and read material generated by students themselves -- is, on the average, better? Especially if in the classrooms where my hypothetical "active reading" is deployed, the students secretly buy well-written books, read them, and pass the tests just as well?
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Why are you assuming that today's traditional lectures are exactly like the lectures that have been held thousands of years ago? Most disciplines have never needed lots of theoretical preparation before someone could be put to work, so lectures weren't even necessary. The master could just show the apprentice how his apprentice how he does something, and then let him practice for a few hours. The more theoretical fields probably started with small groups of wealthy people, which allowed much more direct interaction with the teacher. And what I have read from ancient Greek philosophers almost always involves some kind of dialogue between teacher and students. I can't really imagine aristocrats quietly listening to a lecturer anyway. The first lectures to a large audience in an amphitheater were probably public dissections, and even there the medical students had plenty of opportunity to do the cutting themselves, under the direction of the lecturer. The current "traditional" style of non-interactive lectures is probably actually very recent; together with the emergence of mass-education. Your "active reading" sounds very much like the descriptions I have read of writing circles in creative writing, where students read each other's work and discuss how to improve it. It seems to work fairly well for them. Of course everyone still reads other books, but that they can do alone, while "active reading" can only be done together. What this means for active learning is that when classroom presence is used for interaction with other students and the teacher, while students who need lectures watch them on their own, this is no indication of failure, but the system working as intended. (Except having to pay for lecture videos. Those should be free.) The whole point of being in the same room is the possibility of interaction. If the lecturer is just going to rattle off their script while flipping through the slides, I would rather watch that on video where I can set 2x speed until the hard part starts.
rscho 9y ago
I went through an MD cursus with no lectures. It was horribly inefficient and boring. This experiment has been tried multiple times in various universities already. To my knowledge, it has always failed spectacularly, except in the mind of the cursus policy makers. Also to my knowledge, this kind of cursus has been reversed to a lecture-based system in all cases after some time. My personal take is that the "collaborative" methods are so much in contradiction with the ultra competitive nature of medical school that it simply cannot work. In other words, it is a stupid thing to implement if you want to keep a selective school.

evolve2017 9y ago

This is definitely a trend but it is one I do not suspect will change any time soon. Just to put things in perspectives for people who have not experienced medical school: > 50% of students I knew (secretly) spent thousands of dollars on recorded medical lectures While this may be indeed be true for the students you know, this is also a common practice, in general. The pay-to-play nature of board exam preparation has existed much longer than the active-learning trend. There's no way to know whether these students would have purchased additional materials in another educational system. > thus did well on the tests (and MCATs) anyway. You seem to be conflating a couple of things. The MCAT (the Medical College Admission Test) is taken before medical school. There, just as for later examinations there has been a proliferation of prep materials, for which students pay dearly. This is in no way related to curriculum change in medical schools. Again, you are correct that students who pay more do better. > "objective peer-reviewed studies" of this learning style won't show score/testing degradation -- because the students are so self-sufficient that they work around the failing format with supplemental lecture materials purchased online I understand the sentiment, but if students do better after the adoption of this new system, aren't they learning better? Eventually, medical students move from Wikipedia to more authoritative sources like UpToDate or primary literature. If they, themselves, are motivated to expand their knowledge - and as a result do better on tests - this intervention would have been beneficial. I think you're implying that the huge industry behind medical test preparation materials is new, but this is decidedly not the case.

pixelmonkey 9y ago
I enjoyed your comment. To respond to a couple points: > MCATs are taken before medical school Sorry, that was just a brain malfunction on my part. I meant to write "USMLEs" (residency admission exam for match process). Corrected my comment to state that. > "but if students do better after the adoption of this new system, aren't they learning better?" They are not doing better under the system. They are doing the same, or marginally worse. But I believe the students are more stressed, and getting less value per student debt dollar, due to the "active learning" trend. They are also less prepared for the USMLE and less prepared for residency than they would otherwise be. But they are substituting personal effort for their loss of solid foundational instruction. A really good study would give students half their topics in lecture style and half in active learning style, and measure time spent and topic on "supplemental" learning outside of class.

mahyarm 9y ago

Why do you even need a med school with these types of students

epmaybe 9y ago
To be completely honest, as someone in medical school right now you definitely don't "need" the structure and materials that medical school lecturers and courses provide for those first two years. I however needed the structure and did not have the work ethic to do it on my own. Additionally the next two years of clinical learning most definitely require you to be at the hospital.
- fifteenforty 9y ago
  A professor of medical education once said to us something along the lines of 'The half life of the facts we tell you is about 6 years, so the actual content isn't necessarily that important. What is important is the language and that you learn to understand what you hear and read after you graduate. 5 years after graduation, I feel like I am only starting to truly appreciate that comment. I started medical training 11 years ago, and half of the stuff I read in books during first year was probably already known to be wrong. The lectures we received were biased and incomplete, but they provided a largely up-to-date picture and, more importantly, a story.
  - epmaybe 9y ago
    The story definitely matters, I agree. But if you're good at making that story up as you read the book, why bother coming to class? I'd also argue that not everything is completely out of date. Only things like cytology or genetics and autoimmune disorders from what I can gather. Pathology is largely the same, as in the manifestations don't really change. You can get by studying a First Aid board review book from a few years ago and still pass step 1. Physiology doesn't really change, only treatments targeting the pathophysiology. Medical Schools largely understand that everyone studies and learns differently and that's why they don't mandate you come to lectures. They're recorded for your own benefit as well. My professors would also provide several different learning methods throughout the preclinical courses to really hammer in those mainstay concepts regardless of how you learn. Be it quizzes, or team based learning, or straight lecture.

MengerSponge 9y ago

You should know that "what students like" and "what constitutes effective instruction" can be very different. https://fnoschese.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/khan-academy-and-the-effectiveness-of-science-videos/ https://fnoschese.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/khan-academy-and-... The simplest description is this: Consider two videos. One is a clear lecture (eg Khan Academy style), while the other is a dialogue between a character who espouses the common misperception, and a teacher who illustrates their mistakes. After watching the videos, you have students evaluate how well they think they know the material, how they feel about the video, and then you test them on how well they learned the concept covered by the video. The lecture video had the following results: - Highly rated video clarity - Increased confidence in knowledge - zero change in knowledge (tested) That is to say, students liked the video and thought they learned something, but didn't actually learn anything. The dialogue video, on the other hand, was almost the opposite: - video was considered confusing (not at all clear) - decreased confidence in knowledge - large positive change in knowledge (tested) Students, it would seem, don't know enough to be able to evaluate what is good instruction. (cf Dunning & Kruger)

pixelmonkey 9y ago
I think you are right. But I haven't seen anywhere near a consensus that active learning constitutes an improvement. The reason large academic institutions are moving in this direction is because they are threatened by MOOCs and because administrators are often trained at business schools who love this learning style, mainly because most the content in business school is beside the point anyway.
- rndmize 9y ago
  I'm going to have to disagree. Here's my default article I turn to on the matter - http://www.npr.org/2012/01/01/144550920/physicists-seek-to-lose-the-lecture-as-teaching-tool http://www.npr.org/2012/01/01/144550920/physicists-seek-to-l... . The problem, up until the advent of MOOCs, was there was no incentive for higher education to improve. Prices go up every year, more instruction is dumped on post-docs and adjuncts instead of professors, but the number of people going to college continues to increase. Why improve your product if people keep buying it regardless? And this idea of active learning is nothing new. Maria Montessori did extensive research on effective teaching methods more than a hundred years ago and moved more and more heavily to small projects and physical interaction as the most effective means of instruction. http://www.infomontessori.com/sensorial/visual-sense-binomial-cube.htm http://www.infomontessori.com/sensorial/visual-sense-binomia... I happen to like the binomial cube as an example, because it takes a confusing, "just memorize FOIL" type of concept and turns it into something you can directly interact with to develop a much clearer understanding. And of course, there's things like this: https://xkcd.com/1356/ https://xkcd.com/1356/ Or the explorable explanation that was on the front page the other day about game theory and trust: http://ncase.me/trust/ http://ncase.me/trust/ Or Brett Victor's classic Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction: http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/ http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/ The ability to interact with a model blows traditional educational methods out of the water as far as gaining serious understanding (imo), and I expect this type of instruction to only grow in importance as time goes on.

pragone 9y ago

I would characterize that experience, instead, as very, very poorly implemented. A properly implemented "active learning" environment simply puts the impetus on the students to be pro-active. Whether that's buying outside materials, or requesting a lecture from a professor, or simply meeting with a professor to clear up misunderstandings, the students are the ones who start that process. Of course, that's all reliant on the students being informed of this process from the outset. There should be some kind of structure, and I imagine, if there are exams, there is some kind of structure, for the students to be following. There should be required textbooks as well, so that resources are consistent. And, of course, there needs to be unbiased feedback to improve the system. Also, even lecture-based students spend thousands of dollars on outside material. And doing so isn't a "secret". At least $300-400 is spent by each medical student for the arguably "required" board prep materials, completely disconnected from how they learned in the first two years.

pixelmonkey 9y ago
You might be right. It's certainly possible there are "great" active learning programs out there, and my anecdotal experience is definitely just that -- anecdotal. (And even, second-hand.) That said, I've personally experienced great teaching supplemented by great lectures, and I've not personally experienced great active learning. I studied computer science and philosophy undergrad. I had great professors and not-so-great professors in each. The excellent ones had excellent lectures that I still think back on today, years later. Plus, as a typical programming auto-didact, I learn a ton from recorded lectures/talks on YouTube and similar channels. I wouldn't trade these resources for the world. I can remember a handful of classes that had more of a group/collaborative feel to them. I don't think I'd describe any of them, in retrospect, as "successful" classes. I remember one, in particular -- an algorithms class -- where the professor had just done a long sabbatical in Japan and was trying to cargo cult the group/collaborative learning techniques he witnessed there in his algorithms class, yielding hilarious (and definitely not effective) results. That was the one class where I had to pull an all-nighter at the library, cramming from Sedgewick's "Algorithms" textbook (which wasn't assigned by the professor, but every student had passed around as the right way to learn this stuff) and the odd Wikipedia page. All this effort to pass the final exam -- because I felt like I had spent an entire semester witnessing an educational experiment, rather than learning anything. I imagine many people are in the same boat as me in terms of their experience levels here. Lots of experience with successful lectures, very little experience with successful group learning environments. Certainly, lots of experience with good and bad teaching all-around, where "style" doesn't seem to be the critical issue. I am afraid too many of these institution-wide shifts to "active learning" are being made on little more than well-intentioned hopeful faith.

mncharity 9y ago

> This is a trend/fad that will likely be reversed once properly studied. Err, no. It's quite clear that traditional lectures work poorly, even when they are well done and well liked. And that active learning, when well done, is unambiguously better. However, it's also clear that doing active learning well, takes a lot of instructor training, preparation, and practice. So deploying it is a known problem, with it's own research. Though there's some work on doing hybrids, lectures with sort of a "sing along" question-response, with an effectiveness in between, but easier to train for and deploy (at least for big introductory classes). Which isn't to say that I don't facepalm and think "we need to be doing so much better than this", even when watching active learning at MIT, with its years of instructor and institutional experience across several departments. And even as VR/AR transforms education, something like active learning seems likely to remain a key component. After all, good ways to learn something include practice it, discuss it, and teach it.

pixelmonkey 9y ago
"traditional lectures work poorly, even when they are well done and well liked" Just reflect for a moment on this general statement. You are saying traditional lectures -- a format used for millennia in education of every professional and technical class of society across multiple continents -- "work poorly". And, we are meant to believe that "active learning" -- a new teaching style that throws away the lecture entirely and replaces it with group participation from students -- is, on the average, better. Now imagine if I said this... "deep reading of books written by leaders in their field/discipline, even when those books are well-liked, work poorly." How credible a claim could someone then make that "active reading" -- a new teaching style where we eschew books altogether and instead write and read material generated by students themselves -- is, on the average, better? Especially if in the classrooms where my hypothetical "active reading" is deployed, the students secretly buy well-written books, read them, and pass the tests just as well?
- yorwba 9y ago
  Why are you assuming that today's traditional lectures are exactly like the lectures that have been held thousands of years ago? Most disciplines have never needed lots of theoretical preparation before someone could be put to work, so lectures weren't even necessary. The master could just show the apprentice how his apprentice how he does something, and then let him practice for a few hours. The more theoretical fields probably started with small groups of wealthy people, which allowed much more direct interaction with the teacher. And what I have read from ancient Greek philosophers almost always involves some kind of dialogue between teacher and students. I can't really imagine aristocrats quietly listening to a lecturer anyway. The first lectures to a large audience in an amphitheater were probably public dissections, and even there the medical students had plenty of opportunity to do the cutting themselves, under the direction of the lecturer. The current "traditional" style of non-interactive lectures is probably actually very recent; together with the emergence of mass-education. Your "active reading" sounds very much like the descriptions I have read of writing circles in creative writing, where students read each other's work and discuss how to improve it. It seems to work fairly well for them. Of course everyone still reads other books, but that they can do alone, while "active reading" can only be done together. What this means for active learning is that when classroom presence is used for interaction with other students and the teacher, while students who need lectures watch them on their own, this is no indication of failure, but the system working as intended. (Except having to pay for lecture videos. Those should be free.) The whole point of being in the same room is the possibility of interaction. If the lecturer is just going to rattle off their script while flipping through the slides, I would rather watch that on video where I can set 2x speed until the hard part starts.

rscho 9y ago

I went through an MD cursus with no lectures. It was horribly inefficient and boring. This experiment has been tried multiple times in various universities already. To my knowledge, it has always failed spectacularly, except in the mind of the cursus policy makers. Also to my knowledge, this kind of cursus has been reversed to a lecture-based system in all cases after some time. My personal take is that the "collaborative" methods are so much in contradiction with the ultra competitive nature of medical school that it simply cannot work. In other words, it is a stupid thing to implement if you want to keep a selective school.