Skip to main content
Log in

What Happens To the Student? The Neglected Variable in Educational Outcome Research

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Disputes about the superiority of teaching methods often remain unresolved. The essential question we continuously want to answer is: Which teaching methods yield the best knowledge and skills in students? Abundant literature, in medical education and in education in general, on research with educational methods as independent variables and measures of outcome (e.g., test scores) as the dependent variable often point at ‘no significant difference’ or only small differences between methods. Many factors do influence the educational outcome in students and large statistical power (such as meta analysis) should be helpful to eliminate many souces of error. However, one scource we cannot tackle this way. That is, students will usually adapt quantity and quality of studying to meet testing requirements. In doing so, they may compensate for teaching quality. Some teaching may generate more effort in students than other teaching. Since test scores reflect primarily student activities, it is their efforts that may bring differences in teaching methods close to equality in test scores. Therefore, knowledge and skills should not be considered the primary outcome of teaching but the outcome of learning activities. If we want to discriminate between teaching methods, we must at least consider what happens to students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albanese, M.A. & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine 68: 52-81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albano, M.G., Cavallo, F., Hoogenboom, R., Magni, F., Majoor, G., Manenti, F., Schuwirth, L. & Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (1996). An international comparison of knowledge levels of medical students: the Maastricht Progress Test. Medical Education 30: 239-245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colliver, J.A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine 75(3): 259-266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, E.H. & Pantle, A.J. (1967). The total time hypothesis in verbal learning. Psychological Bulletin 68: 221-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, J.L. & Cook, M.S. (1982). Meta-analyses and the effects of various reward systems: some different conclusions from Johnson et al. Psychological Bulletin 92: 176-183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, R. & Taveggia, T.C. (1968). The Teaching Learning Paradox. A Comparative Analysis of College Teaching Methods. Eugene, OR: Center of Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden R.M., Grant J., Buckley G. & Hart, I.R. (1999). BEME guide no. 1: Best evidence medical education. Medical Teacher 21(6): 443-462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawry, G.V., Schuldt, S.S., Kreiter, C.D., Densen, P. & Albanese, M.A. (1999). Teaching a screening musculoskeletal examination: a randomized, controlled trial of different instructional methods. Academic Medicine 74(2): 199-201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational and behavioral treatment. American Psychology 48(12): 1181-1209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G.R. & Schmidt, H.G. (2000). Evidence of the effectiveness of problem based learning: Theory, practice and paper darts. Medical Education 34: 721-728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G.R. & Shannon, S. (1998). Effectiveness of instruction in evidence based medicine: A critical appraisal. Canadian Medical Association Journal 158: 177-181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maudsley, G. (1999). Do we all mean the same thing by “problem-based learning”? A review of the concepts and a formulation of the ground rules. Academic Medicine 74(2): 178-185.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeish, J. (1976). The lecture method. In N.L. Gage (ed.), The Psychology of Teaching Methods. University of Chicago Press.

  • Russell, T.L. (2000). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. North Carolina State University.

  • Schmidt, H.G. & Moust, J.H.C. (1995). What makes a tutor effective? A structural equations modelling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Academic Medicine 70: 708-714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taverner, D., Dodding, C.J. & White, J.M. (2000). Comparison of methods for teaching clinical skills in assessing and managing drug-seeking patients. Medical Education 34(4): 285-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hurk M.M., Wolfhagen, H.A.P., Dolmans, D.H.J.M. & Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (1998). The relation between time spent on individual study and academic achievement in a problem based curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education 3: 43-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, D.T.A. & Blake, R.L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine 68: 550-563.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

ten Cate, O. What Happens To the Student? The Neglected Variable in Educational Outcome Research. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 6, 81–88 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009874100973

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009874100973

Navigation