The School of Medicine at the University of Virginia has created a room called "The Learning Studio."
Photo Credit: Norm Shafer (
original source)
[I]t coalesced into an unusual, functionally innovate design, one built around a new pedagogy.
Shades of the
Collaboratory at Rutgers. You see,
UVA figured something out:
Most universities continue to follow a blueprint introduced in 1910, which called for two years of in-depth study of the basic sciences followed by two years of clinical experience. A cookie-cutter approach, it means that students spend two years sitting through long lectures and regurgitating facts on tests, followed by the shock treatment in their third year of suddenly dealing with patients in a hospital ward.
“It’s become pretty clear in the last couple of decades that this is probably not the best way to learn something as complex as medicine,” says Randolph Canterbury, the medical school’s senior associate dean for education. “The idea that physicians ought to learn the facts of all these various disciplines—anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and so forth—to the depth that we once thought they should doesn’t make much sense.”
About half of all medical knowledge becomes obsolete every five years. Every 15 years, the world’s body of scientific literature doubles. The pace of change has only accelerated. “The half-life of what I learned in medical school was much longer than what it is today,” adds Canterbury, a professor of psychiatric medicine and internal medicine.
Huh. Who knew?
Oh yeah.
So what happens in that Learning Studio?
. . . In teams of eight, the students debate a patient case: Walt Z., a 55-year-old chemist, comes into your clinic complaining of intermittent chest pain. As his doctor, you’ve arranged for an exercise stress test. But Walt Z. is an informed consumer of health care, and he has lots of questions about the test’s accuracy in diagnosing blockage in coronary arteries. Five large media screens hanging throughout the room delineate his medical details and a series of multiple choice questions.
Gone is the traditional 50-minute lecture. (Also gone is paper, for the most part.) The students have completed the assigned reading beforehand and, because they’ve absorbed the facts on their own, class time serves another purpose. Self-assessment tests at the start of class measure how well they understand the material. Then it’s time to do a test case, to reinforce their critical thinking and push their knowledge and skills to another level.
. . . In this “flattened classroom,” as it’s been described, the traditional top-down educational approach is reconfigured and the responsibility for learning shifts to the student.
Interesting. What about accountability?
Problem solving by teams mirrors the reality of health care today. “The traditional approach has been one patient, one doctor,” says Waggoner-Fountain. “Now, it’s one patient, one doctor and a team, in part because medicine has gotten more sophisticated and patient expectations are different.”
Studies also show that individual grades improve when working within a team. The first-year students have embraced it. Not isolated in auditorium seats bolted to the floor, they can easily move and mingle because everything is in the round.
“Working in a team reinforces what you learn in class,” says Chelsea Becker (Med ’14). “We all have different backgrounds and everyone knows something different.” Science majors don’t hold dominion; the class comprises more than 60 different majors, from astrochemistry to art.
“It allows us to teach each other,” adds Tom Jenkins (Med ’14), who estimates he’s collaborated with just about every person in the class at this point. “I think that helps with retention.”
I could go on, but it would be better if you just go
read the article. Okay, just one more quote:
Every team experience was singular. “We have the sense that education should be standardized and everyone should have the same experience, but that’s not really the case for us,” says Littlewood. “The new Carnegie report talks about having standardized outcomes for individualized experiences, and I think there’s no better example than over here.”
So, let's sum up. Teaching like it's 1910 doesn't make much sense (teacher-centered, lecture-oriented, fact-recall, paper-based, standardized instruction.) Ahh, so glad all the current education reform in K-12 matches up with this vision. They have to be college-ready, ya know.
Labels: collaboration, college, design, Did_You_Know, education_change
Well, before doing any calculations, 2 out of almost 6 million seems rather small. I would expect there to be more.
I estimated there should be about 90 correct final four guesses: For each division, someone has a 1 in 16 chance of choosing correctly. That's a one in 65,536 chance of getting all 4 correct.
1 out of 65536 is roughly 90 out of 5.9 million.
I don't know much about NCAA basketball, but maybe 2 correct guesses is reasonable, considering an 11-seed and an 8-seed made it through to the final four.
At first glance I too would have expected there to be more correct. However, after doing some math I think there should have been 2 correct given a pool of 5.9 million.
Simply focusing on the final four, complete random chance should yield 1 out of ~3.8 million correct. There are 64 possible choices for the first slot, 63 for the second, 62 for the third, and 61 for the fourth (64*63*62*61 = 15,249,024). Because the order of these four teams does not matter, the probability of guessing correctly is greatly increased. Instead of there being one in 15249024 correct, there are four in 15,249,024 (1 in 3,812,256). Based on 5.9 million entries, pure random chance would yield 1 or 2 correct (5.9 / 3.8 = 1.5).
At first glance I thought there should be more but I agree that 2 is about correct, I do not know much about NCAA basketball but calculations show that 2 would be correct.
Grrr...I just wrote a really long comment that got lost to the Gods of the Interweb. In short, if every possibly matchup were equally likely, you would expect 90 correct final 4 picks (it's not going to be 64*63*62*61 because there has to be 1 team from each region). That said, I'm sure lots of people picked all 4 #1 teams.
So I instead went and looked at the vegas odds (they are, after all, in the business of getting the odds correct). My poor Ohio State Buckeye's had the best odds of making the final four at just oder 50%. Kentucky had the best chance of the remaining teams (13.9%) while VCU's odds were .03%. That's right, play the tournament more than 3,000 times and they are expected to make it once. Together, the chances of all 4 of these teams making it is minuscule (.00000030024%). Put another way, you would expect for 1 in 33 million people to pick this bracket. So from that perspective, yes, it's surprising that there are even 2 correct brackets.
On the other hand, if you pick all 4 #1 seeds to advance, whoop-dee-doo. You pick VCU, Butler, UConn, and Kentucky? Bragging rights for the rest of your life (and possibly some money too).
Avery's use of Vegas odds to predict the number of correct brackets is spot-on.
I thought the more interesting question would be: what is the mathematical probability of a final four containing Butler, VCU, Connecticut, and Kentucky? For that question, I used the Log 5 analysis of this year's tournament, whose algorithm was invented by the king of sabermetrics Bill James
According to the log 5 analysis: a final four containing Butler(1.0%), VCU(.03%), UConn(7.2%), and Kentucky(13.9%) will happen 1 in 33,306,700 times.
The mathematical odds match up with the vegas odds almost exactly.
Warning: self promotion to follow.
This post inspired me to expand on my earlier comment on my own blog. If you're curious for more, check out Without Geometry, Life is Pointless
Well, I do know a lot about this tournament, but never did I expect that a number 8 and a number 11 seed would be playing the National Championship Game. However, I on the other hand don't fully follow this sport as much as Hockey or Baseball, I had picked these two teams (Butler & UConn) to play, with UConn coming out as the Nat'l Champion.
However, I must agree with everyone on here about using different math skills as well as using the vegas odds, which I am sure a lot of people used during this tournament. But as much as I am sure about this, I am sure that some people just used common knowledge.
I read, Freakish Final Four, by Carl Fisch. In this very short article, Fisch said that of the nearly 6 million entries for the Final Four results, only 2 were correct. At the end of the article, he asked whether the reader thought this number should have been higher or lower. My answer to this is that I have absolutely no idea. Though I know Mrs. Smith prefers that we pick a side on controversial topics, I really don’t know if this outcome is odd or completely normal. By the way, I know this is not a very controversial topic. But if I had to choose one side, I would honestly imagine that this number would be at least a little bit larger. I find it odd that even though there are probably millions of different possible outcomes for this famous competition due to the fact that 64 different teams compete, that even with the use of logical deduction due to what teams have proven superior in the past only two people guessed correctly. I think this number should be higher by at least 4 charts.