Albanese M
University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1532, USA.
Med Educ. 2000 Sep;34(9):729-38. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00753.x.
A recent review of problem-based learning's effect on knowledge and clinical skills updated findings reported in 1993. The author argues that effect sizes (ES) seen with PBL have not lived up to expectations (0.8-1.0) and the theoretical basis for PBL, contextual learning theory, is weak. The purposes of this study were to analyse what constitutes reasonable ES in terms of the impacts on individuals and published reports, and to elaborate upon various theories pertaining to PBL.
Normal theory is used to demonstrate what various ESs would mean for individual change and a large meta-analysis of over 10 000 studies is referred to in identifying typical ESs. Additional theories bearing upon PBL are presented.
Effect sizes of 0.8-1.0 would require some students to move from the bottom quartile to the top half of the class or more. The average ES reported in the literature was 0.50 and many commonly used and accepted medical procedures and therapies are based upon studies with ESs below 0.50.
Effect sizes of 0.8-1.0 are an unreasonable expectation from PBL because, firstly, the degree of changes that would be required of individuals would be excessive, secondly, leading up to medical school, students are groomed and selected for success in a traditional curriculum, expecting them to do better in a PBL curriculum than a traditional curriculum is an unreasonable expectation, and, thirdly, the average study reported in the literature and many commonly used and accepted medical procedures and therapies are based upon studies having lesser ESs. Information-processing theory, Cooperative learning, Self-determination theory and Control theory are suggested as providing better theoretical support for PBL than Contextual learning theory. Even if knowledge acquisition and clinical skills are not improved by PBL, the enhanced work environment for students and faculty that has been consistently found with PBL is a worthwhile goal.
最近一项关于基于问题的学习(PBL)对知识和临床技能影响的综述更新了1993年报告的研究结果。作者认为,PBL所显示的效应量(ES)未达到预期(0.8 - 1.0),且PBL的理论基础——情境学习理论较为薄弱。本研究的目的是分析就对个体的影响和已发表报告而言,什么构成合理的效应量,并详细阐述与PBL相关的各种理论。
运用正态理论来证明不同的效应量对个体变化意味着什么,并在确定典型效应量时参考了对一万多项研究的大型荟萃分析。还介绍了与PBL相关的其他理论。
效应量达到0.8 - 1.0将要求一些学生从班级的后四分之一跃升至班级上半部分甚至更高。文献中报告的平均效应量为0.50,许多常用且被认可的医疗程序和疗法是基于效应量低于0.50的研究。
对PBL而言,0.8 - 1.0的效应量是不合理的期望,原因如下:其一,对个体要求的变化程度过高;其二,在进入医学院之前,学生是按照传统课程模式培养和选拔以取得成功的,期望他们在PBL课程中比在传统课程中表现更好是不合理的期望;其三,文献中报告的平均研究以及许多常用且被认可的医疗程序和疗法是基于效应量较小的研究。信息加工理论、合作学习、自我决定理论和控制理论被认为比情境学习理论能为PBL提供更好的理论支持。即使PBL没有提高知识获取和临床技能,但PBL始终能为学生和教师营造更好的工作环境,这是一个值得追求的目标。