4.5 Article

Effects of conventional and problem-based learning on clinical and general competencies and career development

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 256-265

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02959.x

关键词

problem based learning; career choice; clinical competence, standards; education, medical, graduate, methods; curriculum; self concept; personal satisfaction; students, medical, psychology; humans

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To test hypotheses regarding the longitudinal effects of problem-based learning (PBL) and conventional learning relating to students' appreciation of the curriculum, self-assessment of general competencies, summative assessment of clinical competence and indicators of career development. METHODS The study group included 2 complete cohorts of graduates who were admitted to the medical curriculum in 1992 (conventional curriculum, n = 175) and 1993 (PBL curriculum, n = 169) at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Data were obtained from student records, graduates' self-ratings and a literature search. Gender and secondary school grade point average (GPA) scores were included as moderator variables. Data were analysed by a stepwise multiple and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Graduates of the PBL curriculum scored higher on self-rated competencies. Contrary to expectations, graduates of the PBL curriculum did not show more appreciation of their curriculum than graduates of the conventional curriculum and no differences were found on clinical competence. Graduates of the conventional curriculum needed less time to find a postgraduate training place. No differences were found for scientific activities such as reading scientific articles and publishing in peer- reviewed journals. Women performed better on clinical competence than did men. Grade point average did not affect any of the variables. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that PBL affects self-rated competencies. These outcomes confirm earlier findings. However, clinical competence measures did not support this finding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据