Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education

被引:298
作者
Cook, David A. [1 ]
Bordage, Georges [2 ]
Schmidt, Henk G. [3 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Coll Med, Div Gen Internal Med, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Dept Med Educ, Chicago, IL USA
[3] Erasmus Univ, Dept Psychol, Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
education; medical; research; biomedical; health knowledge; attitudes; practice; clinical competence; evidence-based medicine; teaching; methods; review [publication type;
D O I
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02974.x
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
CONTEXT Authors have questioned the degree to which medical education research informs practice and advances the science of medical education. OBJECTIVE This study aims to propose a framework for classifying the purposes of education research and to quantify the frequencies of purposes among medical education experiments. METHODS We looked at articles published in 2003 and 2004 in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, American Journal of Surgery, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Medical Education and Teaching and Learning in Medicine (1459 articles). From the 185 articles describing education experiments, a random sample of 110 was selected. The purpose of each study was classified as description ('What was done?'), justification ('Did it work?') or clarification ('Why or how did it work?'). Educational topics were identified inductively and each study was classified accordingly. RESULTS Of the 105 articles suitable for review, 75 (72%) were justification studies, 17 (16%) were description studies, and 13 (12%) were clarification studies. Experimental studies of assessment methods (5/6, 83%) and interventions aimed at knowledge and attitudes (5/28, 18%) were more likely to be clarification studies than were studies addressing other educational topics (< 8%). CONCLUSIONS Clarification studies are uncommon in experimental studies in medical education. Studies with this purpose (i.e. studies asking: 'How and why does it work?') are needed to deepen our understanding and advance the art and science of medical education. We hope that this framework stimulates education scholars to reflect on the purpose of their inquiry and the research questions they ask, and to strive to ask more clarification questions.
引用
收藏
页码:128 / 133
页数:6
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Research in medical education: Balancing service and science [J].
Albert, Mathieu ;
Hodges, Brian ;
Regehr, Glenn .
ADVANCES IN HEALTH SCIENCES EDUCATION, 2007, 12 (01) :103-115
[2]   Research in medical education: finding its place [J].
Bligh, J ;
Parsell, G .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 1999, 33 (03) :162-163
[3]   Educational epidemiology - Applying population-based design and analytic approaches to stuffy medical education [J].
Carney, PA ;
Nierenberg, DW ;
Pipas, CF ;
Brooks, WB ;
Stukel, TA ;
Keller, AM .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 292 (09) :1044-1050
[4]   A call for outcomes research in medical education [J].
Chen, FM ;
Bauchner, H ;
Burstin, H .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2004, 79 (10) :955-960
[5]   The research we still are not doing: An agenda for the study of computer-based learning [J].
Cook, DA .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2005, 80 (06) :541-548
[6]   Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review [J].
Cook, Davin A. ;
Beckman, Thomas J. ;
Bordage, Georges .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2007, 41 (08) :737-745
[7]   The need for Evidence in Medical Education: The development of best evidence medical education as an opportunity to inform, guide, and sustain medical education research [J].
Dauphinee, WD ;
Wood-Dauphinee, S .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2004, 79 (10) :925-930
[8]   The effectiveness of PBL: the debate continues. Some concerns about the BEME movement [J].
Dolmans, D .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2003, 37 (12) :1129-1130
[9]  
Harden RM, 1999, MED TEACH, V21, P553, DOI 10.1080/01421599978960
[10]  
Hutchinson L, 1999, BRIT MED J, V318, P1267