AMEP_A_195286 207..208 L E T T E R Medical embryology in 115 minutes – surely not? This article was published in the following Dove Press journal: Advances in Medical Education and Practice David J Wilson Cardiff University School of Medicine, Centre for Medical Education, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK Dear Editor The article by Kazzazi and Bartlett1 asked “Condensing embryology teaching for medical students: can it be taught in 2 hrs?” Their answer was “yes” – asserting that they had ‘demonstrated that is possible to design and produce an embryology teaching program that covers an undergraduate embryology curriculum in achro- nological systems-based manner in 2 hours with successful results’. This astound- ing claim warranted exploration. A more accurate title would have been an “Embryology crash course” - this was how they had publicised their lecture. Replying to a letter to the Editor from Fallaha etal,2 Kazzazi and Bartlett said their “course was not a ‘summary’ by any extent and was comprehensive and covered the full embryology curriculum in an unortho- dox didactic style in under 2 hrs”. Not accurate: it was not “systems-based” as there was no mention of urinary, reproductive or vascular systems? The critical part of this presentation was the PowerPoint™ slides - these apparently consisted of five or less bullet points, diagrams or both and the presentation also provided “information regarding congenital malformations” and that “there was little additional informa- tion to note down that was not present in the slides.” Surely impossible that this could take less than two hours? For students learning embryology, sources should be expert and information verifiable: for example, Dudek’s High-Yield Embryology3 (in 1996 was 47 pages, but now 140+ pages in the 2014 edition). Bizarrely, there was no ethical approval for this student-led educational experi- ment. The “study was independently run and subsequently endorsed through the student-run university societies.” Seemingly, neither Cambridge or Birmingham University were aware that this “original research” had been undertaken on their first-year medical students just before critical examinations, when students were at their most impressionable/vulnerable. More curiously, the authors claimed that “students were not required to provide consent to attend the course as it was part of their timetables”. If timetabled teaching, why were the universities unaware of the study and why no attribution/acknowledgement of anyone from Birmingham? Was the focus group run at only one of the two institutions? Were the critical comments on embryology teaching (attributed to the focus group), applicable to both medical courses? Important issues – not addressed in the paper. These concerns aside, the article was not scholarly. Few medical courses retain a “preclinical basic science teaching” Flexnerian model;4 modern designs favour integrated programmes, often either case- or problem-based. The paper claimed that “Although speakers in embryology appear confident in teaching the course, these results are discordant with the opinions of medical students as to the effective Correspondence: David J Wilson Cardiff University School of Medicine, Centre for Medical Education, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cochrane Building, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK Tel +44 292 068 8098 Email wilsondj2@cf.ac.uk Advances in Medical Education and Practice Dovepress open access to scientific and medical research Open Access Full Text Article submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Advances in Medical Education and Practice 2019:10 207–208 207 DovePress © 2019 Wilson. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). http://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S195286 A d va n ce s in M e d ic a l E d u ca tio n a n d P ra ct ic e d o w n lo a d e d f ro m h tt p s: // w w w .d o ve p re ss .c o m / b y 1 2 8 .1 8 2 .8 1 .3 4 o n 0 6 -A p r- 2 0 2 1 F o r p e rs o n a l u se o n ly . Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 1 http://www.dovepress.com http://www.dovepress.com https://www.facebook.com/DoveMedicalPress/ https://twitter.com/dovepress https://www.linkedin.com/company/dove-medical-press https://www.youtube.com/user/dovepress http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php delivery of the course”. To support the first assertion, a PhD thesis by Cassidy was partly cited:5 a survey of only 34 variously qualified American faculty, teaching a range of courses. Two respondents had never taught embryology but were included in the “level of confidence when teach- ing embryology” data. Significantly, students taught by this faculty would have been postgraduate, unlike most medical students in UK medical schools. The “discordance with medical student opinion” that the paper suggested, was claimed to be supported by Scott et al6 who surveyed 184 University of Sydney final-year medical students and showed “that the vast majority of students valued embry- ology teaching in their medical programme” – hardly “discordant”. A second source simply demonstrated that a team-based learning approach was better received by first-year medical students than didactic teaching.7 Similarly, Scoville et al8 did not corroborate Kazzazi and Bartlett’s assertion that “peer teaching has been utilized as a means of increasing student confidence in the under- standing of embryology” - the source was an Abstract that outlined Mayo Medical School’s approach, and ends with “Student satisfaction and utilization of near-peer and inter-professional resources will be assessed at the end of the course”. When Patel et al wrote to the Editor9 suggesting that Kazzazi and Bartlett’s evaluation of their 2 hr lecture was too subjective and that they might consider more objective evaluation methods, the response was that these would be “fraught with bias” - Kazzazi and Bartlett were clearly happy to set and then mark their own homework. Overall, instead of padding out their paper with redundant “supplementary material”, the authors should have taken a scholarly approach to their “research” – not least for the reasons given above. Disclosure The author reports no conflicts of interest in this communication. References 1. Kazzazi F, Bartlett J. Condensing embryology teaching for medical students: can it be taught in 2 hrs? Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:797– 806. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S151880 2. Fallala MA, Pagarkar A, Lucas N. Medical students’ perspectives on teaching a concise embryology course. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:143–145. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S160165 3. Dudek RW. High-Yield Embryology. First ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. 4. Weatherall D. Science and medical education: is it time to revisit Flexner? Med Educ. 2011;45:44–50. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2923.2010.03761.x 5. Cassidy KM Embryology in medical education: a mixed methods study and phenomenology of faculty and first year medical students. PhD thesis, Indiana University, 2016 6. Scott KM, Charles AR, Holland AJA. Clinical embryology teaching: is it relevant anymore? ANZ J Surg. 2013;83:709–712. doi:10.1111/ ans.12213 7. Shankar N, Roopa R. Evaluation of a modified team based learning method for teaching general embryology to first year medical graduate students. Indian J Med Sci. 2009;63:4–12. 8. Scoville EA, Nyauncho CP, Kumar N, Hassinger JP, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Utilizing peer, near-peer, and inter-professional teaching: a model for integrating embryology into gross anatomy curriculum. FASEB J. 2010;24(1 suppl). Available from: https://www.fasebj.org/ doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.24.1_supplement.296.3 9. Patel CR, Maleki A, Kalkarni S. Enhancing the learning experience of embryology for medical students. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:139– 141. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S160915 Dove Medical Press encourages responsible, free and frank academic debate. The content of the Advances in Medical Education and Practice ‘letters to the editor’ section does not necessarily represent the views of Dove Medical Press, its officers, agents, employees, related entities or the Advances in Medical Education and Practice editors. While all reasonable steps have been taken to confirm the content of each letter, Dove Medical Press accepts no liability in respect of the content of any letter, nor is it responsible for the content and accuracy of any letter to the editor. Advances in Medical Education and Practice Dovepress Publish your work in this journal Advances in Medical Education and Practice is an international, peer- reviewed, open access journal that aims to present and publish research on Medical Education covering medical, dental, nursing and allied health care professional education. The journal covers undergraduate education, postgraduate training and continuing medical education including emerging trends and innovative models linking education, research, and health care services. The manuscript management system is completely online and includes a very quick and fair peer-review system. Visit http://www.dovepress.com/testimonials.php to read real quotes from published authors. Submit your manuscript here: http://www.dovepress.com/advances-in-medical-education-and-practice-journal Wilson Dovepress submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com DovePress Advances in Medical Education and Practice 2019:10208 A d va n ce s in M e d ic a l E d u ca tio n a n d P ra ct ic e d o w n lo a d e d f ro m h tt p s: // w w w .d o ve p re ss .c o m / b y 1 2 8 .1 8 2 .8 1 .3 4 o n 0 6 -A p r- 2 0 2 1 F o r p e rs o n a l u se o n ly . Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 1 https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S151880 https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S160165 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03761.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03761.x https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12213 https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12213 https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.24.1_supplement.296.3 https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.24.1_supplement.296.3 https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S160915 http://www.dovepress.com http://www.dovepress.com/testimonials.php http://www.dovepress.com http://www.dovepress.com