Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The end of educational science?

The end of educational science? Adv in Health Sci Educ (2008) 13:385–389 DOI 10.1007/s10459-008-9139-x EDITORIAL Geoff Norman Published online: 21 October 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 This has been an interesting week. As well as welcoming in a new (academic) year, I also came across three papers in recent publications that have, in my view, enormous impli- cations for how we go about our trade. If we take the message of these papers to heart, it will no longer be ‘‘business as usual’ in medical educational research. In the September issue of Medical Education, Colliver et al. (2008) reanalyzed studies of effectiveness of PBL derived from a meta-analysis by Gijbels et al. (2005). He found that 10 of 11 studies in the review were ‘‘quasi-experimental’’, and this led to measurable bias. In two studies, assignment to PBL or other was not randomized, resulting in demonstrable baseline differences in favour of PBL. In five others, there was a con- founding between intervention and outcome, where PBL students had practice with the outcome format, and one study had both problems (and a few more). Colliver’s conclusions go beyond the old ‘‘PBL-other’’ debate, however; he challenges the whole idea that anything of value can come from http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Health Sciences Education Springer Journals

The end of educational science?

Norman, Geoff
Advances in Health Sciences Education , Volume 13 (4) – Oct 21, 2008
Download PDF
5 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-end-of-educational-science-ucqGHydP2w

References (26)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Education; Medical Education
ISSN
1382-4996
eISSN
1573-1677
DOI
10.1007/s10459-008-9139-x
pmid
18941917
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Adv in Health Sci Educ (2008) 13:385–389 DOI 10.1007/s10459-008-9139-x EDITORIAL Geoff Norman Published online: 21 October 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 This has been an interesting week. As well as welcoming in a new (academic) year, I also came across three papers in recent publications that have, in my view, enormous impli- cations for how we go about our trade. If we take the message of these papers to heart, it will no longer be ‘‘business as usual’ in medical educational research. In the September issue of Medical Education, Colliver et al. (2008) reanalyzed studies of effectiveness of PBL derived from a meta-analysis by Gijbels et al. (2005). He found that 10 of 11 studies in the review were ‘‘quasi-experimental’’, and this led to measurable bias. In two studies, assignment to PBL or other was not randomized, resulting in demonstrable baseline differences in favour of PBL. In five others, there was a con- founding between intervention and outcome, where PBL students had practice with the outcome format, and one study had both problems (and a few more). Colliver’s conclusions go beyond the old ‘‘PBL-other’’ debate, however; he challenges the whole idea that anything of value can come from

Journal

Advances in Health Sciences Education – Springer Journals

Published: Oct 21, 2008

There are no references for this article.