14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Metodologías didácticas activas frente a paradigma tradicional. Una revisión sistemática Translated title: Active teaching methodologies versus traditional paradigm: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introducción. El actual escenario educativo ha requerido incorporar metodologías activoparticipativas al paradigma tradicional de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Objetivo. El estudio pretende verificar las diferencias existentes entre la aplicación de metodologías activoparticipativas y el paradigma tradicional con relación al aprendizaje de los estudiantes del área de la salud. Material y métodos. Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases bibliográficas Medline, LILACS, ERIC y SciELO, utilizando la estrategia de búsqueda: ‘students, health occupations' AND ‘patient simulation' OR ‘standardized patient' OR ‘hybrid simulation' OR ‘high fidelity simulation training' OR ‘simulation Training' OR ‘problem based learning' OR ‘inverted classroom' OR ‘flipped classroom' AND ‘traditional classroom' AND learning OR ‘Kolb´s learning' OR ‘Kirkpatrick model' OR ‘soft skills test'. Resultados. De los 1.085 registros identificados, se incluyeron 11 artículos para el análisis. En estos artículos, al comparar el aula tradicional con las metodologías activoparticipativas, se encontró que estas últimas obtuvieron mejores resultados en las variables aprendizaje, confianza en la adquisición del aprendizaje, pensamiento crítico y habilidades; sin embargo, no hubo significación estadística en la mayoría de los estudios. Conclusiones. No se evidenciaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes entre la utilización de las metodologías de aprendizaje activoparticipativas y el paradigma tradicional.

          Translated abstract

          Introduction. The current educational scenario has required incorporating active-participatory methodologies for the construction of knowledge together with students into the traditional teaching-learning paradigm. Objective. To verify the differences between the application of active participatory methodologies with the traditional paradigm in the learning of students in the health area. Material and methods. A systematic review was carried out in the bibliographic bases Medline, LILACS, ERIC and SciELO, using the search strategy: ‘students, health occupations' AND ‘patient simulation' OR ‘standardized patient' OR ‘hybrid simulation' OR ‘high fidelity simulation training' OR ‘simulation Training' OR ‘problem based learning' OR ‘inverted classroom' OR ‘flipped classroom' AND ‘traditional classroom' AND learning OR ‘Kolb´s learning' OR ‘Kirkpatrick model' OR ‘soft skills test'. Results. Of the 1,085 records identified, 11 articles were included for analysis. In these articles, when comparing the traditional classroom with the active participatory methodologies, the latter obtained better results in the learning variables, confidence in the acquisition of learning, critical thinking and skills, but there was no statistical significance in most of the studies. Conclusions. No statistically significant differences were found in student learning between the use of active learning methodologies and the traditional paradigm.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

            It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.

              To test the hypothesis that lecturing maximizes learning and course performance, we metaanalyzed 225 studies that reported data on examination scores or failure rates when comparing student performance in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses under traditional lecturing versus active learning. The effect sizes indicate that on average, student performance on examinations and concept inventories increased by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies), and that the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional lecturing (n = 67 studies). These results indicate that average examination scores improved by about 6% in active learning sections, and that students in classes with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more likely to fail than were students in classes with active learning. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that both results hold across the STEM disciplines, that active learning increases scores on concept inventories more than on course examinations, and that active learning appears effective across all class sizes--although the greatest effects are in small (n ≤ 50) classes. Trim and fill analyses and fail-safe n calculations suggest that the results are not due to publication bias. The results also appear robust to variation in the methodological rigor of the included studies, based on the quality of controls over student quality and instructor identity. This is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date. The results raise questions about the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in research studies, and support active learning as the preferred, empirically validated teaching practice in regular classrooms.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                fem
                FEM: Revista de la Fundación Educación Médica
                FEM (Ed. impresa)
                Fundación Educación Médica y Viguera Editores, S.L. (Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain )
                2014-9832
                2014-9840
                2023
                : 26
                : 1
                : 5-12
                Affiliations
                [1] Santiago orgnameUniversidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH) orgdiv1Escuela de Obstetricia y Puericultura Chile
                Article
                S2014-98322023000100002 S2014-9832(23)02600100002
                10.33588/fem.261.1255
                9086aa03-8422-49b7-a3a9-1204011201a4

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 20 October 2022
                : 19 January 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 27, Pages: 8
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Originales

                Problem-based learning,Students,Simulation training,Methodology,Lecture,Learning,Metodología,Estudiantes,Entrenamiento simulado,Clase,Aprendizaje basado en problemas,Aprendizaje

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content175

                Cited by2

                Most referenced authors782