Michel Martin C, Bischoff Angela, Zu Heringdorf Meyer, Neumann Dietmar, Jakobs Karl H
Nephrol. Lab. IG 1, Klinikum Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122 Essen, Germany.
Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2002 Jul;366(1):64-8. doi: 10.1007/s00210-002-0570-x. Epub 2002 May 22.
We have compared the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) and classical lecture-based learning (LBL) in conveying medical facts in a general pharmacology class of third year medical students ( n=107). Three groups with a total of 31 students were randomly assigned to PBL. The PBL groups (9-12 students each) received ten 2-h sessions in which a clinical case was discussed and ten 2-h sessions in which areas of pharmacology not covered by the case discussions were presented in an LBL format (one group with all 31 students). The other students were assigned to groups of 14-15 students and received 20 2-h sessions in an LBL format. At the end of the semester all students received a questionnaire and participated in the same 30-question multiple-choice exam. The mean number of false answers was 7.6+/-4.0 and 9.7+/-4.7 in the PBL and LBL groups, respectively ( P<0.05 in a two-tailed t-test), and the percentage of failing students (>10 false answers) was 27% and 38%, respectively. Both groups were asked to rate their pharmacology class on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). In this questionnaire, PBL students by average rated generated interest in pharmacology, conveyed knowledge in pharmacology and understanding of medical questions approximately 1 point higher than LBL students. In an additional questionnaire given to the PBL students only, they reported to have prepared themselves 0.9+/-1.1 h for their lecture sessions but 3.0+/-1.4 h for their case discussions. The above findings were largely confirmed in the next semester when students were allowed to decide whether to participate in PBL or LBL classes. Moreover, PBL students did not score worse than LBL students in nation-wide pharmacology exams (523+/-76 vs. 500+/-91 points, P=0.09). We conclude that a switch from LBL to PBL teaching of pharmacology does not occur at the expense of factual knowledge transmission.
我们比较了基于问题的学习（PBL）和传统的基于讲座的学习（LBL）在向三年级医学生（n = 107）的普通药理学课程传授医学知识方面的有效性。将总共31名学生的三组随机分配到PBL组。PBL组（每组9 - 12名学生）接受了十次2小时的课程，在这些课程中讨论了一个临床病例，还接受了十次2小时的课程，在这些课程中以LBL形式呈现了病例讨论未涵盖的药理学领域（一组有全部31名学生）。其他学生被分成每组14 - 15名学生的小组，并接受了20次2小时的LBL形式的课程。在学期末，所有学生都收到了一份问卷，并参加了相同的30道选择题考试。PBL组和LBL组的平均错误答案数分别为7.6 ± 4.0和9.7 ± 4.7（双侧t检验中P < 0.05），不及格学生（错误答案>10个）的百分比分别为27%和38%。两组都被要求对他们的药理学课程从1（最低）到10（最高）进行评分。在这份问卷中，PBL学生对药理学产生的兴趣、传授的药理学知识以及对医学问题的理解平均比LBL学生高出约1分。在仅发给PBL学生的另一份问卷中，他们报告说为讲座课程准备了0.9 ± 1.1小时，但为病例讨论准备了3.0 ± 1.4小时。在下学期，当学生可以决定是否参加PBL或LBL课程时，上述结果在很大程度上得到了证实。此外，在全国药理学考试中，PBL学生的得分并不比LBL学生差（523 ± 76分对500 ± 91分，P = 0.09）。我们得出结论，从LBL转向PBL教授药理学不会以牺牲事实性知识的传授为代价。
