Job requirements compared to medical school education: differences between graduates from problem-based learning and conventional curricula

Background: Problem-based Learning (PBL) has been suggested as a key educational method of knowledge acquisition to improve medical education. We sought to evaluate the differences in medical school education between graduates from PBL-based and conventional curricula and to what extent these curricula fit job requirements. Methods: Graduates from all German medical schools who graduated between 1996 and 2002 were eligible for this study. Graduates self-assessed nine competencies as required at their day-to-day work and as taught in medical school on a 6-point Likert scale. Results were compared between graduates from a PBL-based curriculum (University Witten/Herdecke) and conventional curricula. Results: Three schools were excluded because of low response rates. Baseline demographics between graduates of the PBL-based curriculum (n = 101, 49% female) and the conventional curricula (n = 4720, 49% female) were similar. No major differences were observed regarding job requirements with priorities for "Independent learning/working" and "Practical medical skills". All competencies were rated to be better taught in PBL-based curriculum compared to the conventional curricula (all p < 0.001), except for "Medical knowledge" and "Research competence". Comparing competencies required at work and taught in medical school, PBL was associated with benefits in "Interdisciplinary thinking" (Δ + 0.88), "Independent learning/working" (Δ + 0.57), "Psycho-social competence" (Δ + 0.56), "Teamwork" (Δ + 0.39) and "Problem-solving skills" (Δ + 0.36), whereas "Research competence" (Δ - 1.23) and "Business competence" (Δ - 1.44) in the PBL-based curriculum needed improvement. Conclusion: Among medical graduates in Germany, PBL demonstrated benefits with regard to competencies which were highly required in the job of physicians. Research and business competence deserve closer attention in future curricular development

Hochschulranking Erziehungswissenschaft. CHE und STERN beziehen erstmals Erziehungswissenschaft in ihr Hochschulranking ein

Als Mitarbeiter des CHE beschreibt der Autor die Durchführung von Evaluation von Hochschulen und Fakultäten durch das CHE. Dabei wird zunächst der Ansatz und die Methodik des Rankings von CHE/Stern vorgestellt und darauf einige Besonderheiten des Rankings für die Geisteswissenschaften und die Lehramtsstudiengänge diskutiert. (DIPF/Orig.

The Lack of a National Policy Regime of Quality Assurance in Germany – Implications and Alternatives

Due to its federal order and unlike countries as the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, Germany has no national policy regime of quality assurance in higher education. There are several instruments aiming at defining minimum standards or assessing quality in some way, but none is targeted at quality assurance on a national level. State approval of courses and universities is within the responsibility of the individual states (“Länder”) and follows more or less formal criteria. Evaluation is carried out either by single universities or on a regional level (e.g. in the “Nordverbund”). As a consequence their results did not get much public attention. Accreditation is still in its infancy and restricted to the newly introduced Bachelor and Master courses. The only nation-wide instruments of comparison in higher education are rankings that are carried out by private institutions. The implications of this lack of a national policy regime are discussed with respect to both national policies of quality assurance and rankings. Key methodological standards for rankings which they have to meet in order to fulfil their function, are outlined.

L'absence d'un régime national de garantie de la qualité en Allemagne – incidences et alternatives

Du fait de sa structure fédérale, et contrairement à d’autres pays tels que les Pays-Bas ou le Royaume-Uni, il n’existe pas en Allemagne de régime national de garantie de la qualité dans l’enseignement supérieur. Il y a certes divers instruments ayant pour objet de définir les normes minimales ou d’évaluer la qualité d’une façon ou d’une autre, mais aucun d’entre eux ne vise la garantie de la qualité au niveau national. L’homologation des cursus et des universités incombe à chacun des États (Länder) et se fait en conformité avec certains critères plus ou moins formels. L’évaluation est conduite, soit au niveau de chaque université, soit au niveau régional (par exemple dans le Nordverbund). En conséquence, ses résultats ne bénéficient pas d’une grande attention de la part de l’opinion publique. L’homologation en est encore à ses débuts et se limite aux programmes nouvellement créés de licence et de maîtrise. Le seul instrument de comparaison de l’enseignement supérieur qui couvre l’ensemble du pays est constitué par les classements effectués par des établissements privés. On examine ici les incidences de cette absence de dispositif national en tenant compte aussi bien des politiques nationales de garantie de la qualité et des classements. A propos de ces derniers, on définit les normes méthodologiques essentielles auxquelles ils doivent répondre afin de jouer leur rôle.

U-Multirank:A European multidimensional transparency tool in higher education

This article by two members of the U-Multirank team dis- cusses rankings as transparency tools for higher educa- tion stakeholders. It shows briefly how early rankings met students’ and decision makers’ needs in a limited way. They have been focused almost exclusively on research publication data; in contrast, U-Multirank is multidimen- sional. It includes individual customisation through a web tool, different information at institutional and field levels, and, with a view to student users, a major international student satisfaction survey. In our final discussion of out- comes and results, we conclude that U-Multirank shows that there is not one ‘best’ university in the world

Wirkungen politischen Handelns auf den Bevölkerungsprozeß

Kaufmann F-X, Strohmeier KP, Federkeil G. Wirkungen politischen Handelns auf den Bevölkerungsprozeß. Schriftenreihe des Bundesinstituts für Bevölkerungsforschung. Vol 21. Boppard am Rhein: Boldt; 1992

An evaluation and critique of current rankings

This chapter raises the question of whether university league tables deliver relevant information to one of their key target groups – students. It examines the inherent biases and weaknesses in the methodologies of the major rankings and argues that the concentration on a single indicator of excellence (research) and single function of an institution ignores the diverse needs and motivations of prospective students in choosing a university. It also raises the issue of rankings that proclaim the ‘excellence’ of an entire institution, which may not be an accurate reflection of the performance of individual departments. The authors then present some principles and examples of good practice in ranking and discuss alternative classification system