Cited by 418Problem and Project Based LearningInnovations in Medical EducationBiomedical and Engineering Education

Problem‐based learning: why curricula are likely to show little effect on knowledge and clinical skills

Albanese, Mark·2000·Medical Education

Abstract

Objectives A recent review of problem-based learning's effect on knowledge and clinical skills updated findings reported in 1993. The author argues that effect sizes (ES) seen with PBL have not lived up to expectations (0.8-1.0) and the theoretical basis for PBL, contextual learning theory, is weak. The purposes of this study were to analyse what constitutes reasonable ES in terms of the impacts on individuals and published reports, and to elaborate upon various theories pertaining to PBL. Design Normal theory is used to demonstrate what various ESs would mean for individual change and a large meta-analysis of over 10 000 studies is referred to in identifying typical ESs. Additional theories bearing upon PBL are presented. Results Effect sizes of 0.8-1.0 would require some students to move from the bottom quartile to the top half of the class or more. The average ES reported in the literature was 0.50 and many commonly used and accepted medical procedures and therapies are based upon studies with ESs below 0.50. Conclusions Effect sizes of 0.8-1.0 are an unreasonable expectation from PBL because, firstly, the degree of changes that would be required of individuals would be excessive, secondly, leading up to medical school, students are groomed and selected for success in a traditional curriculum, expecting them to do better in a PBL curriculum than a traditional curriculum is an unreasonable expectation, and, thirdly, the average study reported in the literature and many comm…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00753.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • On average, the use of computer-based scaffolding would bring students who were at the 50th percentile to the 68th percentile (Albanese, 2000).

    “On average, the use of computer-based scaffolding would bring students who were at the 50th percentile to the 68th percentile (Albanese, 2000).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Albanese, M.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Albanese, Mark
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-09
Volume
34
Issue
9
Pages
729-738
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2146964420
Cited by
418
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 20
FWCI
92.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biomedical and Engineering Education
Keywords
problem-based learning, effect size, medical curriculum, clinical skills, knowledge acquisition, information processing theory, cooperative learning, self-determination theory, control theory, meta-analysis of effect sizes
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, United States, Problem-Based Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review