Blog do Curso de Medicina da Universidade Estadual de Maringá para a discussão de temas de Educação Médica, Educação das Profissões da Saúde e áreas correlatas.
Blog of University of Maringá Medical School for the discussion of issues of Medical Education, Health Professions Education and related areas.
Buscando humanização, Medicina da USP reduz tempo em sala de aula
Quem começou medicina na USP neste ano encontrou cenário de mudança. A
graduação de seis anos, considerada a melhor do país, sofreu redução de
30% no número de disciplinas, que agora são oferecidas de forma mais
integrada. O curso ganhou abordagem mais humanizada, com foco no
Os novos alunos estudam conjuntamente temas que antes ficavam em gavetas
separadas, caso de anatomia e histologia (estudo dos tecidos). As
provas se tornaram semestrais, avaliando o conteúdo de maneira mais
Paralelamente, outros temas ganharam espaço no currículo, como "ciclos
da vida", disciplina que aparece no primeiro ano do curso e dá noções de
cuidados médicos na infância e terceira idade.
Lalo de Almeida/Folhapress
veste jaleco com o logo da medicina da USP no Instituto de Ortopedia e
Traumatologia do Hospital das Clínicas em São Paulo.
O aluno passa menos tempo na sala de aula: se antes ficava quase oito
horas por dia confinado, agora a taxa gira em torno de cinco horas.
"Com o tempo que sobra, o estudante pode se envolver em pesquisa e em
trabalhos de extensão voltados ao atendimento de pacientes", diz Edmund
Chada Baracat, ginecologista e docente da USP que encabeçou a mudança.
Esse tipo de currículo, mais moderno e flexível, já é seguido por
escolas top do mundo há muito tempo. Nos EUA, país que concentra seis
das dez melhores universidades de medicina do mundo, segundo o ranking
Times Higher Education, um estudante não passa mais que três horas em
"Às vezes, um professor dá exercício em aula de manhã e os alunos têm de
resolvê-lo sozinhos ou em grupos até o fim do dia", conta Ana Flávia
Garcia Silva, 22. Estudante do quinto ano da USP, ela traz no currículo
intercâmbios em Harvard e Michigan.
Quando esteve na primeira universidade -considerada a segunda melhor do
mundo-, passou quase o tempo todo no laboratório. Ao voltar para o
Brasil, teve de "repetir" um ano no curso porque não conseguiu
equivalência do que estudou lá com disciplinas obrigatórias daqui.
"Quando vi as mudanças no curso da USP, queria prestar vestibular de
Editoria de Arte/Folhapress
BEBENDO NA FONTE
Parte das inspirações para a mudança da USP veio justamente dos EUA.
Apesar de diferenças cruciais na formação educacional nos dois países,
há aspectos que ainda podem ser importados.
"Aqui, a relação médico-paciente passa por disciplinas, exercícios e
estudos de caso", diz Marcos Montagnini, geriatra e responsável pelo
grupo de cuidados paliativos da Universidade de Michigan, uma das
instituições que influenciaram a USP.
São os profissionais de paliativos que trabalham a humanização da
medicina de maneira mais profunda, tratando aspectos físicos,
psicológicos e espirituais de pacientes com doenças crônicas terminais.
Nos EUA, a disciplina é obrigatória há mais de uma década.
Por aqui, não há essa exigência. Para Baracat, da USP, a redução da
carga horária pode fazer com que os estudantes tenham tempo para se
dedicar a assuntos mais humanistas, como paliativos, ainda na graduação.
"Antes isso era quase impossível."
Giovanni Guido Cerri, diretor da AMB (Associação Médica Brasileira),
avalia que a mudança no curso da principal universidade do país é
simbólica. Dá um oportuno chacoalhão no tom em que o médico vinha sendo
formado. "Mas ainda falta o estudante conhecer com mais profundidade o
SUS e as características da nossa saúde pública e privada", diz. "O
Brasil é complexo, e precisamos formar os médicos adequados para um país assim."
The Most Popular Online Course Teaches You to Learn
By John Markoff
most popular online course is a general introduction to the art of
learning, taught jointly by an educator and a neuroscientist.
“Learning How To
Learn,” which was created by Barbara Oakley, an electrical engineer, and
Terry Sejnowski, a neuroscientist, has been ranked as the leading class
by enrollment in a survey of the 50 largest online courses released earlier this month by the Online Course Report website.
The course is “aimed
at a broad audience of learners who wanted to improve their learning
performance based on what we know about how brains learn,” said Dr.
Sejnowski, the director of the Computational Neurobiology Laboratory at
the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif.
students enrolled since the course was created last year, “Learning How
to Learn,” which is offered by the University of California through
Coursera, an online learning company which has partnered with a number
of universities, has narrowly edged out the more tightly focused course,
“Machine Learning,” taught by Stanford University professor Andrew Ng,
which currently has 1,122,031 students enrolled.
The similar enrollment
figures are striking in part because the field of machine learning has
become one of the hottest university areas of study in recent years.
High technology companies are competing intensely in Silicon Valley and
elsewhere for newly minted data scientists.
The enrollment figures
indicate that massively open online courses, or MOOCs, which in 2012
emerged as a potentially disruptive force that some believed might
threaten the modern educational system, are continuing to evolve and
gaining broad acceptance as part of an increasingly diverse marketplace
for online education.
The Achilles heel of
the MOOC phenomena has been that while enrollments have been huge, the
number of students who actually complete courses for credit has remained
low. That has led traditional educators to argue that the new
technology would fail because students are generally less motivated to
complete coursework online.
The completion rate —
or “stickiness” — of the “Learning How to Learn” course has been above
20 percent, said Dr. Sejnowski, roughly twice the average for most
MOOCs. He said the course is now attracting about 2,000 new students a
day from 200 countries. The course was created after the two researchers
met at the National Science Foundation-financed Science of Learning
Center at the University of California at San Diego, which Dr. Sejnowski
Dr. Oakley, a
professor of engineering at Oakland University in Michigan, acknowledged
that although only roughly 50,000 of the more than one million
enrollees in her course had actually received a certificate for the
course, certification was the wrong metric to understand the impact of
the new form of online education.
“People frame it
incorrectly,” she said. “Students are clearly hungry to learn, and
they’re particularly hungry for practically useful, scientifically based
information told in a way that they can really get it.”
She is a passionate advocate of the MOOC concept against a range of academic critics. She recently wrote an essay
defending online education technologies. Dr. Oakley claims there is
evidence that the course has touched a nerve more broadly from a diverse
audience that is eager to acquire to improve their learning skills.
She cited a range of
groups who are promoting the course from the California State Prison
System, federal K-12 teacher certificate programs, as well as refugee
camps in Somalia and Sudan, where she asserted that students threatened
to overwhelm the meager Internet bandwidth available in those countries.
There is evidence that
MOOCs are being fed by a broad base of “life-long learning” interest
said Merrill Cook, editor of the Online Course Report.
“Your average person taking a MOOC has a bachelors degree and is in their 30s,” he said.
He noted that there is
now an increasing proliferation of a range of different online learning
offerings beyond MOOCs. That can be seen in the shift in strategy in
one of the earliest commercial efforts in the new approach to teaching.
Take Udacity, which
was founded by Sebastian Thrun, an artificial intelligence researcher
who taught at Stanford and then founded Google’s X Lab research effort.
After first offering MOOCs, the Mountain View, Calif.-based firm shifted
its strategy and now offers “Nanodegrees” to train online customers in
very specific skills.
“If I look back at the
MOOC hype, what actually happened was that people equated a cheaper
delivery method with the replacement of the entire educational system,”
Dr. Thrun said. “A cheaper technology is not the same as a business
What should be the place of educational technology (edtech) in the wider higher ed conversation?
As we look to 2016, where should the edtech profession direct its focus?
I’d like to make 3 arguments for those of us working at the
intersection of learning and technology to widen our perspectives, and
to perhaps shift our focus to the bigger questions faced by the higher
Argument 1 - Technology Is the Least Interesting Part of Higher Education:
We should always keep in mind that technology is only a tool - a
means to an end. Technology is never the goal, and technology is never
The temptation, however, is for those of us in edtech to focus most
of our energies on the tools. Engaging in debates around costs, access,
and quality is a messy proposition. How do we have any impact on the
larger challenges in postsecondary education in an age of public funding
cuts and the adjunctification of the professoriate? Where do we enter
the debate around rising student debt and persistently low six-year
graduation rates? Technology, with its ever improving costs/performance
trajectory (Moore’s Law), seems to be a much happier place to occupy
than the policy, governance, and resource debates that dominate so much
of the higher ed discourse.
The answer, of course, is that technology alone will never address
the fundamental challenges that we face in higher ed. Technology can
wow, and technology can distract. Alternatively, technology can be an
effective tool to reach our larger goals and to reflect our most
important values. It all depends on how we go about using the
technology. If we are to be effective in edtech, if we are to have a
true positive impact, then we are going to have to become much more
knowledgeable about the larger challenges facing higher ed. We will need
to become as conversant in finance, marketing, and organizational
change as we are in the latest educational technologies. We will need to
take part in many more conversations.
Argument 2 - As EdTech Professionals, We Bring An Important Skills and Perspectives to the Larger Higher Ed Discussion:
Having said that technology is the least interesting part of higher
education, I do want to argue that us technologists bring some important
skills to the table. Mostly, we have the experience and the ability to
create things. We will push for moving more quickly from talk to action
than our colleagues may be comfortable with. We will want to develop
minimally viable products (or services or programs), and then rapidly
improve these initiatives as we learn from market feedback.
push for both a strong set of objectives, and data to guide rapid
corrections. We will be comfortable with risk. This is not just empty
techno speak, but rather a reflection of the core ethos of our
technology (and innovation) culture.
For those of you like myself that came up in the online learning
world we have lots of experience in building new programs. Online
learning gets way too little credit for its role in driving
organizational change. Creating a successful online program requires the
development of new pedagogical, technological, and administrative
capacities. The state of the art of online learning is evolving so
rapidly that innovation is constant. If you are running an online degree
program (or even a few online courses) you are always iterating,
experimenting, and improving. Over the last decade or so I have watched
how much of what we have learned in online education has filtered into
traditional residential education. The hard distinction between a fully
on-ground and fully online class is eroding, as every course (and in
particular larger enrollment courses) transition to a blended mode of
delivery. The same methods of backwards course design, formative
assessment, and design for engagement and presence that characterize a
good online course also describe a good residential course.
When will we start to see those that have developed and run online
learning programs gain greater influence throughout higher ed? Will we
start to see provosts and presidents with backgrounds in online
Argument 3 - The Postsecondary Status Quo Is Not Sustainable,
and Technology (and Technologist) Must Play an Essential Role in
The best argument I think for why the edtech profession needs to
engage with the bigger issue in higher ed is that status quo cannot be
sustained. We can’t keep doing what we have been doing in higher
education and expect that our sector will solve our challenges around
access, costs, and quality. Unlike many who are reading this post, I
believe that the future of the US higher education is positive. In my
professional life I have watched as the quality of teaching and learning
on our campuses has improved. No longer do we find it acceptable to
construct an educational approach around the transmission of
information. Active learning has become a widely accepted goal. I give
much of the credit to this shift to online education, both traditional
and open. Any school that does not offer a learning experience better
than what can be had for free and online is in deep trouble. When it
comes to teaching and learning, the floor (in certain respects) has been
This does nothing to diminish the counterproductive and ultimately
self-defeating disinvestments in educators that we have also witnessed
in the last few decades. The smartest policy that any institution could
pursue would be to invest in the security, autonomy, and compensation of
faculty. A race to the educational bottom is a losing game, as
low-marginal cost online platforms (adaptive learning paired with open
online courses) is poised to take over the low-end of the higher ed
How we will move make non-linear advances in improving access,
reducing costs, and investing in quality are all open questions. I
believe that the edtech community needs to be part of these
discussions. In taking a leadership role we will need to find a way to
make common cause with faculty of every rank. The educational technology
profession has too often been on the efficiency side of the
postsecondary innovation argument. We have done a poor job in making the
case that education is a relational activity, and technology is only as
good as it supports the work of our educators. We need to make a strong
case against scaling an endeavor that is best done at a human scale.
We will see technology mediating more of the learning process, but we
should never take the focus away from providing the resources and
support to the skilled and experienced educators that create the real
value in education. A focus on supporting our educators is, I think, the
place that the edtech profession should start as we seek to lead change
in higher education. My strong hope is that 2016 is the year that we
earn the trust of our faculty colleagues.
How do you think that the edtech profession should engage in the wider higher ed conversation in 2016?
Nanomedicine concepts in the general medical curriculum: initiating a discussion
Abstract: Various applications of nanoscale science to
the field of medicine have resulted in the ongoing development of the
subfield of nanomedicine. Within the past several years, there has been a
concurrent proliferation of academic journals, textbooks, and other
professional literature addressing fundamental basic science research
and seminal clinical developments in nanomedicine. Additionally, there
is now broad consensus among medical researchers and practitioners that
along with personalized medicine and regenerative medicine, nanomedicine
is likely to revolutionize our definitions of what constitutes human
disease and its treatment. In light of these developments, incorporation
of key nanomedicine concepts into the general medical curriculum ought
to be considered. Here, I offer for consideration five key nanomedicine
concepts, along with suggestions regarding the manner in which they
might be incorporated effectively into the general medical curriculum.
Related curricular issues and implications for medical education also
are presented. Keywords: medical education, basic science, teaching, learning, assessment, nanoscience curriculum, nanomedicine concepts