What happens to the student? The neglected variable in educational outcome research

被引:52
作者
Ten Cate, O [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utrecht, Med Ctr, Sch Med Sci, NL-3508 TC Utrecht, Netherlands
关键词
academic achievement; Best Evidence Medical Education; educational outcome research; medical education; learning activities; research in teaching; teaching methods;
D O I
10.1023/A:1009874100973
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 [教育学原理]; 120403 [教育经济与管理];
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:81 / 88
页数:8
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]
PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING - A REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON ITS OUTCOMES AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES [J].
ALBANESE, MA ;
MITCHELL, S .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1993, 68 (01) :52-81
[2]
An international comparison of knowledge levels of medical students: The Maastricht Progress Test [J].
Albano, MG ;
Cavallo, F ;
Hoogenboom, R ;
Magni, F ;
Majoor, G ;
Manenti, F ;
Schuwirth, L ;
Stiegler, I ;
vanderVleuten, C .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 1996, 30 (04) :239-245
[3]
[Anonymous], TEACHING LEARNING PA
[4]
Cohen J., 1998, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, V2nd
[5]
Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory [J].
Colliver, JA .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2000, 75 (03) :259-266
[6]
TOTAL-TIME HYPOTHESIS IN VERBAL LEARNING [J].
COOPER, EH ;
PANTLE, AJ .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1967, 68 (04) :221-&
[7]
META-ANALYSES AND THE EFFECTS OF VARIOUS REWARD SYSTEMS - SOME DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS [J].
COTTON, JL ;
COOK, MS .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1982, 92 (01) :176-183
[8]
HARDEN RM, 1999, MED TEACH, V21, P443
[9]
Teaching a screening musculoskeletal examination: A randomized, controlled trial of different instructional methods [J].
Lawry, GV ;
Schuldt, SS ;
Kreiter, CD ;
Densen, P ;
Albanese, MA .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1999, 74 (02) :199-201
[10]
THE EFFICACY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT - CONFIRMATION FROM METAANALYSIS [J].
LIPSEY, MW ;
WILSON, DB .
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 1993, 48 (12) :1181-1209