Regarding the main questions of the study that have been formulated above, two findings seem to be most important: Firstly, our study has shown, that it is in fact practically possible to implement PBL as an educational strategy under the conditions of a large German medical school. Secondly, the study provided sound evidence that the PBL approach does not lead to disadvantages concerning students' factual knowledge as measured by a combination of multiple-choice and short-essay questions. The results of our study therefore support earlier findings2[3]–4 and constitute another link in the chain of evidence indicating that PBL is equipotent to LBL as far as students' factual knowledge is concerned.Further conclusions are more difficult to draw: The fact that the PBL students achieved slightly better results in the category of short-essay questions might indicate, that an examination testing more complex levels of knowledge (i.e. on the comprehension or analysis level), is more appropriate for testing the outcome of PBL in terms of factual knowledge than multiple-choice questions. An intra-group comparison of the two categories of questions further supported this hypothesis, revealing that students who had undergone the lecture-based course scored significantly lower in the short-essay part, whereas their PBL counterparts reached similar results in both categories of questions. It is important to stress though, that the direct comparison of the short-essay results in both groups only showed marginal results. Also, the multiple-choice questions we used in our study were not intended to assess a more complex, i.e. comprehension or analysis level of knowledge. Hence, if there is a difference, it is not necessarily a difference between multiple-choice and short-essay questions, but between questions addressing different levels of knowledge.
Stephanie Callinan on 17 Sep 13Dr. Stephen Chew is a professor and chair of psychology at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. He is a cognitive psychologist with interests in teaching strategies, formative assessment, and cognition & instruction. I have included brief descriptions of his video series below: Video series: "How to study long and hard and still fail… or how to get the most out of studying" Video #1: "Beliefs that make you stupid" 1. Learning is fast. 2. Learning isolated facts (note cards). 3. Fixed mindset. 4. Good at multi-tasking (while studying, i.e. texting, computer breaks, games, etc.) Video #2: Examined a study looking at "levels of processing." Study examines shallow v. deep processing, intent v. incidential exposure, and strict memorization. Group with deep processing (regardless of intent v. incidential) had the highest recall. Shallow = memorization. Deep = understanding, comprehending, applying, visualizing Video #3: Four ideas to achieve deep processing: elaboration (how does this relate?), distinction (how is this similar/different?), personal (how does this relate to experience?), appropriate retrieval and application (how am I expected to use or apply this concept?). Extent of use of each principle depends on professor style! Video #4: Study strategies: Ask questions! (facts [ok], relationships, compare/contrast, apply in new situation, apply to personal experience, etc.). Concept maps (visual learners?), Retrieve info in way teach expects (2 parts: recall without notes, use information). Also discusses note-taking, good highlighting. Video #5: Don't panic/deny failure. Evaluate exam preparation (lecture, required readings, study technique, etc.), review exam with professor, review notes!, talk with professor, develop revised study plan.
