• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Advances in health sciences education: theory and practice >The end of educational science?
【24h】

The end of educational science?

机译：教育科学的终结？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

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 implications 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 confounding 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 systematic reviews directed to the calculation of an effect size, and instead argues that "the field may be better served, in most cases, by systematic narrative reviews that describe and individually evaluate individual studies and their results rather than reviews that obscure biases and confounds by averaging."
机译：这是有趣的一周。在迎接新的一年（学术）的同时，我在最近的出版物中也遇到了三篇论文，我认为这些论文对我们的贸易方式产生了巨大的影响。如果我们牢记这些论文的信息，那么在医学教育研究中将不再是“一切照旧”。在9月的医学教育杂志中，Colliver等人（2008年）重新分析了源于PBL的PBL有效性研究。 Gijbels等人（2005）进行的荟萃分析发现，本评价中的11项研究中有10项是“准实验性”的，这导致了可衡量的偏差;在两项研究中，未随机分配给PBL或其他人证实基线差异有利于PBL。在其他五项研究中，干预与结果之间存在混淆，PBL学生采用结果格式进行练习，一项研究同时存在两个问题（以及更多）。Colliver的结论超出了然而，这是一个古老的“ PBL-other”辩论;他对整个价值观念都提出质疑，即任何有价值的东西都可以来自针对效果大小计算的系统评价，相反，他认为“在大多数情况下，可以更好地为该领域服务”系统叙事描述和单独评估单个研究及其结果的评论，而不是通过平均来掩盖偏见和混淆的评论。”

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号