What Happens To the Student? The Neglected Variable in Educational Outcome Research
- Olle ten Cate
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Disputes about the superiority of teaching methods often remain unresolved. The essential question we continuously want to answer is: Which teaching methods yield the best knowledge and skills in students? Abundant literature, in medical education and in education in general, on research with educational methods as independent variables and measures of outcome (e.g., test scores) as the dependent variable often point at ‘no significant difference’ or only small differences between methods. Many factors do influence the educational outcome in students and large statistical power (such as meta analysis) should be helpful to eliminate many souces of error. However, one scource we cannot tackle this way. That is, students will usually adapt quantity and quality of studying to meet testing requirements. In doing so, they may compensate for teaching quality. Some teaching may generate more effort in students than other teaching. Since test scores reflect primarily student activities, it is their efforts that may bring differences in teaching methods close to equality in test scores. Therefore, knowledge and skills should not be considered the primary outcome of teaching but the outcome of learning activities. If we want to discriminate between teaching methods, we must at least consider what happens to students.
- Albanese, M.A. & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine 68: 52-81.
- Albano, M.G., Cavallo, F., Hoogenboom, R., Magni, F., Majoor, G., Manenti, F., Schuwirth, L. & Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (1996). An international comparison of knowledge levels of medical students: the Maastricht Progress Test. Medical Education 30: 239-245.
- Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Colliver, J.A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine 75(3): 259-266.
- Cooper, E.H. & Pantle, A.J. (1967). The total time hypothesis in verbal learning. Psychological Bulletin 68: 221-234.
- Cotton, J.L. & Cook, M.S. (1982). Meta-analyses and the effects of various reward systems: some different conclusions from Johnson et al. Psychological Bulletin 92: 176-183.
- Dubin, R. & Taveggia, T.C. (1968). The Teaching Learning Paradox. A Comparative Analysis of College Teaching Methods. Eugene, OR: Center of Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon.
- Harden R.M., Grant J., Buckley G. & Hart, I.R. (1999). BEME guide no. 1: Best evidence medical education. Medical Teacher 21(6): 443-462.
- Lawry, G.V., Schuldt, S.S., Kreiter, C.D., Densen, P. & Albanese, M.A. (1999). Teaching a screening musculoskeletal examination: a randomized, controlled trial of different instructional methods. Academic Medicine 74(2): 199-201.
- Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational and behavioral treatment. American Psychology 48(12): 1181-1209.
- Norman, G.R. & Schmidt, H.G. (2000). Evidence of the effectiveness of problem based learning: Theory, practice and paper darts. Medical Education 34: 721-728.
- Norman, G.R. & Shannon, S. (1998). Effectiveness of instruction in evidence based medicine: A critical appraisal. Canadian Medical Association Journal 158: 177-181.
- Maudsley, G. (1999). Do we all mean the same thing by “problem-based learning”? A review of the concepts and a formulation of the ground rules. Academic Medicine 74(2): 178-185.
- McLeish, J. (1976). The lecture method. In N.L. Gage (ed.), The Psychology of Teaching Methods. University of Chicago Press.
- Russell, T.L. (2000). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. North Carolina State University.
- Schmidt, H.G. & Moust, J.H.C. (1995). What makes a tutor effective? A structural equations modelling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Academic Medicine 70: 708-714.
- Taverner, D., Dodding, C.J. & White, J.M. (2000). Comparison of methods for teaching clinical skills in assessing and managing drug-seeking patients. Medical Education 34(4): 285-291.
- Van den Hurk M.M., Wolfhagen, H.A.P., Dolmans, D.H.J.M. & Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (1998). The relation between time spent on individual study and academic achievement in a problem based curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education 3: 43-49.
- Vernon, D.T.A. & Blake, R.L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine 68: 550-563.
- What Happens To the Student? The Neglected Variable in Educational Outcome Research
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Volume 6, Issue 1 , pp 81-88
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- academic achievement
- Best Evidence Medical Education
- educational outcome research
- learning activities
- medical education
- research in teaching
- teaching methods
- Industry Sectors
- Olle ten Cate (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. University Medical Center Utrecht, School of Medical Sciences, The Netherlands