PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10211260

Problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in a course of basic pharmacology: a controlled, randomized study.

Abstract

Since its first implementation in a medical programme at McMaster University, Canada, problem-based learning (PBL) has become a well-established means of teaching and learning medicine. Extensive research has been conducted and a number of strengths of the method are well supported. Several items, however, remain unclear although there is evidence that no relevant difference exists in factual knowledge among students from PBL and traditional curricula, a controlled, randomized study has not been conducted to address this issue. The Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne is in the process of integrating elements of PBL into its curriculum. In the spring term of 1997, after seven semesters of experience with PBL supplementing the traditional course of basic pharmacology, we did for the first time use PBL instead of the lecture-based course (LBL) and conducted a controlled prospective study to determine the effects of this intervention. One-hundred and twenty-three students were randomly assigned to either PBL (n = 63), with tutorial groups of up to nine students, or to the traditional, lecture-based course (n = 60). Analysis of the results of both groups in the examination of basic pharmacology, consisting of multiple-choice and short-essay questions, revealed similar scores with a tendency favouring PBL students in the category of short-essay questions. Hence, it seems clear that PBL does not imply a disadvantage in terms of factual knowledge. Students considered PBL to be an effective learning method and favoured it over the lecture format. Furthermore, students reported positive effects of PBL in terms of use of additional learning resources, interdisciplinarity, team work and learning fun.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W Antepohl, S Herzig. 1999. Problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in a course of basic pharmacology: a controlled, randomized study.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00289.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗