A Comparison of Three Neuroscience Curriculum Models in an Osteopathic Medical School

Objective Neuroscience has enjoyed tremendous growth over the past 20 years, including a substantial increase in the number of neuroscience departments, programs, and courses at the undergraduate level. To meet the need of new neuroscience courses, there has also been growth in the number of introductory neuroscience textbooks designed for undergraduates. However, textbooks typically trail current knowledge by five to ten years, especially in neuroscience where our understanding is increasing rapidly. Consequently, it is often important to supplement neuroscience and textbooks with information about recent findings in neuroscience. The purpose of this educational study is to compare 3 different models of teaching and evaluate their effectiveness as they are applied to get a better idea of how neuroscience education is being delivered. Methods 3 Models of teaching were compared in this study; The Longitudinal model where the neuroscience course was taught separately, irrespective of the rest of the gross anatomy course, the Interdisciplinary model where the neuroscience course was taught as a single unit of different disciplines, irrespective of the other different courses and systems, and finally, the Interdisciplinary/system‐based model where the neuroscience course was taught as a single unit of different disciplines, following the system‐based curriculum adopted by the school. A retrospective study of the students’ grades and student's evaluation in surveys that were presented to postgraduate neuroscience students was conducted. These surveys were presented to students at the end of each neuroscience course in an Osteopathic Medical School between the years 2009 to 2015, regarding how the neuroscience education is being delivered. Results Students have scored highest scores in the longitudinal model of teaching followed by the Interdisciplinary model and lastly by Interdisciplinary/system‐based model. With scores data, there was statistically significant differences in the scores between the three models. The mean score of students’ evaluations showed that the students were more content with the Interdisciplinary/system‐based model of teaching, followed by the Interdisciplinary model and lastly by the Longitudinal model. Conclusion The results of this study provide data that can be used to determine future directions and priorities for neuroscience education. Data will hopefully help faculty who teach neuroscience at medical institutions to better define their activities. Support or Funding Information The authors declare no funding to report.