The Inverted Case Study Technique: Changing the Traditional Case‐study Approach for Increased Comprehension of Physiological Concepts

Problem‐based learning (PBL) is one of the most natural and fundamental ways to find the answers to a particular problem. One particular form of PBL, the case study, has been used extensively across the disciplines and has become wide‐spread in education, specifically in medical education. While extremely useful, the medical case study often lacks emphasis on true understanding of the physiological basis of the disease and treatment. This can cause critical thinking to be ignored in favor of memorization of the symptoms‐disease‐treatment relationship. Therefore, we proposed flipping the model of the traditional case‐study design. With the “inverted case study technique,” or ICST, all information is presented at the start of the case. Then, carefully crafted physiologically relevant questions promote discussion of the mechanism of the disease and treatment. ICST focuses on student understanding of the relevant physiological concepts rather than just answering the questions of what is wrong with the patient and what is the treatment. The protocol for ICST involves a 3‐step process, and discussion groups are a large part of the active learning component. First, the topic is introduced with all the relevant information about the case, including diagnosis and treatment plans. Students are then separated into groups for 30 minutes to discuss, answer, and prepare a short 5‐minute presentation over a specific assigned question. Students present their question/answer by teaching the rest of the class, focusing on physiological mechanisms. Second, students are assigned a more complex question about the case and are asked to present a 30 minute presentation for the next class session. During the second meeting students present their question and answer to the class. Active student involvement in the discussion is expected with the professor taking a back‐seat. Third, students prepare a Friday “wrap‐up” presentation and bring all the key physiological concepts together to explain the case study in a mechanistic manner. In terms of the course schedule, after four professor‐made case studies, each taking one week, students are assigned a relevant disease and asked to create their own case study including relevant information, group assignments, and questions. For the last 4 weeks of the course, students cover two more professor‐made case studies while working on their own group student‐made case study. Week seven is used for students to present and walk the class through their student‐made case study, and week eight is used for review and a multiple‐choice final that includes mechanism‐focused questions from each of the six professor‐made case studies. Students are given a survey at the end of the course. On a scale from 1–5 with 5 being strongly agree and 1 being strongly disagree, students (n=27) rated the statement, “This course helped me to integrate several different areas of physiology” with a 4.74±0.52. The statement “The topics covered in this course helped me to better understand physiological principals as they relate to disease” was rated 4.70±0.47. Overall, students reported that this novel course design was extremely helpful in terms of understanding and applying learned physiological concepts.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.