Professional Documents
Culture Documents
March 2007
Clinical Seminars
(as they once were)
When a case was presented, the attempt was made to understand the development of the disorder; in terms of genetic endowment (in so far as this was ever known), personality, adverse development and affective change. Many psychotic illnesses can be understood in this way; schizophrenia or an organic process was diagnosed when the attempt failed.
Clinical Seminars
as they often are now
The trainee fits the patient on to the nearest DSM-4 category; if a personality disorder is present it must conform to DSM-4 description, and is declared to be co-morbid with it.
Other disorders can also be present, on other axes. The attempt to understand is, well, oldfashioned
Academic Seminars
as they usually were
Each week, two doctors were chosen to read a paper; the seminar leader and the other doctors listened to the presentation
how many of you recognise this? what is wrong with it?
Academic Seminars
as they usually were
Each week, two doctors were chosen to read a paper; the seminar leader and the other doctors listened to the presentation
PROBLEM: Most of the doctors were passive listeners, and the quality was limited by the ability of the presenting doctor. We can do much better than that!
4. Critical seminars
Divide the students into groups of six; give ALL students a paper to read a week beforehand, but do not tell them the question
Some examples.
In what way can social conditions ever cause a mental disorder? How does the environment increase, or decrease, the probability of gene expression in the phenotype?
Critical Seminars - 1
These are good if students need practice in spotting errors and developing a critical stance towards papers.
Choose a recent paper with at least one thing wrong with it. Ask students to read it beforehand.
Critical Seminars - 2
On the day, allocate different tasks to each pair of students.
Ask students in turn to present their conclusions
The tasks might be: 1. Is there a clear hypothesis? If there is, is it supported?
2. Are the subjects appropriate, and are there enough of them? Could they have biassed the results?
3. Are the measures appropriate if not, what would have been better, and why? 4. Are the statistical tests appropriate? 5. Are results presented clearly?
There are probably many more ways. (If so, tell me now!)
Which ever way you carry them out, always obtain FEEDBACK from your students at the end of the course. What could they have done without?