Problem‐based learning: a dissemination success story?
Abstract
The demand to implement clinical and educational strategies based on evidence has increased in the past two decades. Over a similar time frame, the problem-based learning (PBL) approach has been widely adopted by undergraduate medical schools, in spite of empirical reviews suggesting that its effectiveness may be limited. Students claim that PBL provides a more satisfying learning experience than traditional methods. While such an outcome is desirable, it is substantively less than the original promise of the approach. We hypothesise that the widespread adoption of PBL may be more a consequence of the approach meeting criteria for successful dissemination than of demonstrable positive educational outcomes. We suggest that greater effort should be taken to articulate and measure important undergraduate educational outcomes. Alternatives to the PBL approach should be actively considered.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Sanson-Fisher and Lynagh (2005) concluded that available evidence, although methodologically flawed, offers little support for the superiority of problem-based learning over traditional curricula.
“an article on the same topic by Sanson-Fisher and Lynagh (2005) concluded that “Available evidence, although methodologically flawed, offers little support for the superiority of PBL over traditional curricula””
From Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions (2006) · cites this paper as Sanson-Fisher and Lynagh (2005)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions
Savery, J. R. (2006) · Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning · doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1002 · Cited by 2,686 · see citing works
“A rationale and guidelines for the selection of authentic problems in PBL is discussed extensively in Savery & Duffy (1995), Stinson and Milter (1996), Wilkerson and Gijselaers (1996), and MacDonald (1997).”
Koh, G. C.-H., Khoo, H. E., Wong, M. L., & Koh, D. (2008) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.070565 · Cited by 659 · see citing works
Using cognitive theory to facilitate medical education
Qiao, Y. Q., Shen, J., Liang, X., Ding, S., Chen, F. Y., Shao, L., Zheng, Q., & Ran, Z. H. (2014) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-79 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sanson‐Fisher, R. W., & Lynagh, M. C.
- Affiliations
- Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, NSW.
- University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
- ORCID
- Lynagh, Marita C
- Venue
- Medical Journal of Australia
- Publisher
- AMPCo
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 183
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 258-260
- ISSN
- 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
- 1326-5377
- OpenAlex
- W2169569307
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 34.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- The Medical Journal of Australia (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
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- problem-based learning, medical education, evidence-based education, undergraduate medical students, educational outcomes, student satisfaction
- MeSH terms
- Australia, Clinical Competence, Consumer Behavior, Culture, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Social Environment, Program Evaluation, 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