万达广场经营项目分类:急需英文翻译！要的高手！！

However, specific questions do get addressed. Recently an RCT on the teaching of musculoskeletal examination in four formats revealed that “small-group instruction with hands-on supervised practice is superior to more passive instructional methods” (Lawry et al., 1999). If we look closely at this well designed study however, it appears from the data that a written course in the subject, with or without video instruction, also did remarkably well in terms of learning outcome in a standardized patient test after one week, 3 months and 16 months. Figure 1 shows the graphics, based on the published data. The data are puzzling. How can something like musculoskeletal examination can be learned so well without a practical course? Is it really possible that students can learn to do a physical exam,or swim or ride a bicycle, out of a book? It must be the case that students in the written instruction group were doing something else on their own by way of practical application, in order to compensate for the simple “book learning”. It seems to me that this study is important in revealing a far more serious, fundamental threat to any curriculum comparison study, the problem of blinding, that we tend to overlook(it was mentioned at the beginning of the paper. Did you, as you read it, pause to ponder on the issue?). The lack of blinding cannot be compensated by more careful randomization or larger sample sizes. No amount of methodological tweaking can make students unaware of the instruction they are receiving – indeed if they were unaware of the instruction, this is a sign of the ultimate failure of the intervention.And once aware, students may compensate for educational interventions.