Welcome to EMT City
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing topics, give reputation to other members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Possibly not an axiom?

24 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I recently had an experience that has at least led me to question a concept often touted on this site as essentially being an axiom. Unfortunately, I cannot go into details. Basically, it involved two groups of students taking the same phsiology based class. One group had completed a stand alone year long course in anatomy and physiology with labs while the other only had anatomy and physiology integrated into their training course. The pass rates of both groups were statistically insignificant.

While not absolutely compelling it is leading me to at least consider long held beliefs. I assumed that one group would have performed significantly better, but that certainly was not the case. With that said, many factors were certainly uncontrolled and I am not presenting this as valid evidence, but rather an anecdote that goes against formal convention.

I would ask for productive conversation regarding the topic at hand. You can be as specific or as broad as you want. Additionally, I would prefer to see literature on this issue as I have not found anything particularly compelling, one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Hmmm, what I'm pondering is the comprehensive nature of the Stand Alone Class. The comprehensive class would have included everything contained within the integrated class, but can we say the same in reverse? Perhaps the reason they were statistically insignificant is because both classes knew the content, but you're evaluating the stand alone class based on the requirements of the integrated one, what would happen if your integrated class was evaluated based on the knowledge required to pass the stand alone class?

To make an easy analogy, a high school senior and a first grader pass a spelling test of three letter words at the first grade level with a similar score...now, what would the results be if the two were to write a spelling test of 3 - 8 letter words at the 12th grade level? Edited by Arctickat
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Did you consider the difficulty level of the exam? If the exam covered only concepts limited to what was covered in the integrated class, then obviously the integrated class students will do well since they had less material to cover and it was more directed. The stand-alone class students might do similar, because they knew the same material, but more. Also, the stand-alone students might have had more time from when they learned the material to taking the test.

Does the exam test their ability to have working knowledge of A&P? Scenarios asking what might possibly be going on with a patient based on signs/symptoms you might get in the field. Might the A&P Standalone students do better in pathophysiology overall because they have a better foundation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The stand alone course is the typical year of anatomy and physiology that most every nursing and allied health student must complete. It is fairly comprehensive and includes a total of eight credits. Six of which are lecture and two are lab. The course typically occurrs over two semesters where the students do a three credit lecture and one credit lab per semester.

Again, I cannot go into detail, but it at least makes me wonder if mandating a year of anatomy and physiology makes a quantitative difference. For example, would nurses and paramedics do better with stand alone A&P versus integrated A&P? I've yet to find smoking gun evidence to support my assertion that mandating a year of A&P makes students learn A&P better than an integrated course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What I was trying to get at is, how are you judging the doing "better"?
Better at passing a paramedic exam? The integrated one might teach to the test more, because you're worried (understandably) on making sure you teach them what they need to pass... and thus extra material is left out (again understandably).

Passing the exam does not necessarily translate to having a better grasp of A&P and having a better foundation to learn about other topics like pharmacology or being able to use the information in the field (or remembering new information they might get from a journal article or an explanation by a doctor).

Or hell, it might be that an integrated class allows them to only remember what they need to know and that actually does make them better medics? Doubtful, but can't rule it out.

Also, what grades are the students getting on the A&P classes? An A student with integrated A&P knowledge might do better than a C- student with stand-alone class knowledge.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's really hard to say, as you've mentioned, but the mental exercise is fun..

Though I'm sure you can't show it, seeing the exam would be necessary I think. As Kat explained so well, it would depend on the level of the exam not only from a level of how thorough and expansive the knowledge would need to be for one to pass it, but how abstract the concepts being tested were. Was the exam mostly common memorization, or were students forced to use their biological education to solve physiological problems, and if so, did that go beyond such things as interference(s) in blood/gas barriers as commonly taught to entry level healthcare providers?

I know you love this question, and I actually spent several hours determined to come up with the bell wringing appropriate research to post...but man, I've got nothing. And that's come to seem really weird to me, as it seems like such an important question. But, perhaps there has been collegiate level research that showed that less college is equally valuable...I'm guessing that the sponsoring college would be less than motivated to push for the publication of such a study, yet who else would be motivated to sponsor it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As others have said, it all depends on how you are evaluating the learning. If you gave the National Registry EMT-B test to a group who had just taken a 150 hour US EMT-B course and to a group a newly graduated degree paramedics from Australia, I would not be surprised if the better educated paramedics did no better.

I suspect that this would be the challenge in trying to research this type of thing as well. It will be difficult to come up with a truly valid test and two nearly identical groups to do the different courses. Even with that much working out, the applicability of the results to any setting other than where the study was conducted would probably be limited.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To be clear, I am talking about a freshman level pathophysiology class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm replying as someone who has done both pathways. First, was a semester each general anatomy then physiology class both with labs. A few years after completing those I undertook a non-US based paramedic degree that had combined elements of A&P over two semesters with very limited lab time. Topics covered were almost identical as were exams and marking criteria. I performed equally in both.

As both classes met their objectives I wouldn’t think that there would be much different solely based upon being integrated or not. The only thing that comes to mind would be with the integrated class, is that if students are covering other topics simultaneously, while someone may choose to solely do an independent class thus having more focused time.

At the end of the day, as stated in the first post, I think you are still going to have good performers and poor performers independent on what the layout is like. Like some of the others have pointed out, the hard thing is the ability of to measure both the betterness and the long term effects of both pathways (i.e. differences in retaining and applying knowledge, who makes a better practitioner, etc)
Interesting topic nevertheless
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I've been looking for any kind of research on this particular topic and am also coming up short. If it's there I'm just not finding it. Does the research comparing similar situations even exist? Honest question. I don't know.

My initial thoughts were along the lines of Kat's discussion. I realize that's not very helpful and a bit of a cop out contribution to the discussion. But he articulated what I was thinking pretty well.

What's not addressed, either, is how well the students from the stand alone class fare over the long run in terms of academic preparation and professional growth and development when compared to the integrated students who only learned what's on the test. That, I think, would be an interesting long term study in which to engage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now