Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

More Chest Roentgen Signs and How to Teach Them

1968; Radiological Society of North America; Volume: 90; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1148/90.3.429

1527-1315

Benjamín Felson,

Empathy and Medical Education

The "ever-whirling wheels of change" have never spun faster than in our medical schools today. The curricular changes reflect a new philosophy in medical education, in which do-it-yourself learning is the dictum and lecture is almost a dirty word. New teaching methods are being devised and old ones revised and vitalized. For the most part, these methods stress intensive student participation and are designed to keep him awake, interested, and motivated to progress on his own. And this is all to the good. Lecturing isn't bad, only lecturers. Some are good, and a few are even great. Take Harry Garland, in whose memory this lecture is being given. What secret did he possess that made him one of the truly preeminent teachers? Oh, yes, he had the facts, the understanding, the knowledge, but so do many others. The difference was that when he spoke, you listened! He was psychedelic. With his first word you were hooked. The "trip" was so terrific you became a repeater. He had a dramatic flare and a quick wit that riveted your attention; he had a needling brashness that challenged you, dared you to prove him wrong. And if perchance you did, he disarmed you with a grin! Another superb lecturer is our president, Harold Jacobson. He parlays erudition, effort, and enthusiasm into an exciting educational experience. You want to listen; you're afraid not to for fear of missing something important. Anyone who can make a dull and complex topic like bones sound interesting has to have something special. People like Garland and Jacobson don't just tell you; they convince you! Unfortunately, individuals with these innate talents are rare. The rest of us have to work at it. With experience and sometimes an assist from a Carnegie—Andrew, Dale, or Hattie—most teachers eventually acquire a teaching skill. Like a fine Cheddar cheese, a good lecture gets better each year; but sadly, only for a few years. Then it begins to grow stale and rancid from lack of revitalization. Obviously, a change is needed. Change is good for many reasons, not the least of which is that the student becomes aware that the teacher is trying to buck convention, and he likes this. There is at least one disadvantage, however: the student also becomes skilled at learning by a particular method, and changing the technic requires that he readjust his own life-long habits. But merely to change is not enough. Curriculi, curricula, any teaching method will fail if done poorly and most will succeed if done well. How you teach is only one aspect of the academic revolution; what you teach is something else. I've always felt that principles should be emphasized more than facts.