Cargando…

The Educational Efficacy of Humane Teaching Methods: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Despite the fact that there are currently many humane teaching methods available, harmful animal use in education and training remains widespread among life and health sciences disciplines. The use of humane teaching methods instead is based not only on legal, ethical, and economic f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zemanova, Miriam A., Knight, Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33430457
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11010114
_version_ 1783640697504530432
author Zemanova, Miriam A.
Knight, Andrew
author_facet Zemanova, Miriam A.
Knight, Andrew
author_sort Zemanova, Miriam A.
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: Despite the fact that there are currently many humane teaching methods available, harmful animal use in education and training remains widespread among life and health sciences disciplines. The use of humane teaching methods instead is based not only on legal, ethical, and economic factors, but also on evidence that these training techniques are just as efficient or even better in improving knowledge, understanding, and clinical or surgical skills proficiency among students. However, studies systematically comparing the learning outcomes of both harmful animal use and humane teaching methods are more than a decade old, and the evidence needs to be updated. Here, we assess and summarize the currently available studies through the process of a systematic review. We found 50 relevant studies and established that in 90% of studies humane teaching methods were as or more effective than harmful animal use in achieving desired learning outcomes. These results are clear—there is no valid educational reason for continued harmful animal use in education and training. ABSTRACT: Humane alternatives to harmful educational animal use include ethically-sourced cadavers, models, mannequins, mechanical simulators, videos, computer and virtual reality simulations, and supervised clinical and surgical experiences. In many life and health sciences courses, however, traditional animal use persists, often due to uncertainty about the educational efficacy of humane alternatives. The most recent comprehensive reviews assessing learning outcomes of humane teaching methods, in comparison to harmful animal use, were published more than 10 years ago. Therefore, we aimed to collate and analyse the combined evidence from recent and older studies about the efficacy of humane teaching methods. Using specific search terms, we systematically searched the Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EMBASE databases for relevant educational studies. We extracted information on publication years, the country in which the study was conducted, field, humane teaching methods, form of learning outcome assessment, and the learning outcome of the humane teaching methods, in comparison with harmful animal use. We found 50 relevant studies published from 1968–2020, primarily stemming from the USA, UK, and Canada. Humane teaching methods produced learning outcomes superior (30%), equivalent (60%), or inferior (10%) to those produced by traditional harmful animal use. In conclusion, a wide-spread implementation of humane teaching methods would not only preserve learning outcomes, but may in fact be beneficial for animals, students, educators, and institutions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7827170
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78271702021-01-25 The Educational Efficacy of Humane Teaching Methods: A Systematic Review of the Evidence Zemanova, Miriam A. Knight, Andrew Animals (Basel) Review SIMPLE SUMMARY: Despite the fact that there are currently many humane teaching methods available, harmful animal use in education and training remains widespread among life and health sciences disciplines. The use of humane teaching methods instead is based not only on legal, ethical, and economic factors, but also on evidence that these training techniques are just as efficient or even better in improving knowledge, understanding, and clinical or surgical skills proficiency among students. However, studies systematically comparing the learning outcomes of both harmful animal use and humane teaching methods are more than a decade old, and the evidence needs to be updated. Here, we assess and summarize the currently available studies through the process of a systematic review. We found 50 relevant studies and established that in 90% of studies humane teaching methods were as or more effective than harmful animal use in achieving desired learning outcomes. These results are clear—there is no valid educational reason for continued harmful animal use in education and training. ABSTRACT: Humane alternatives to harmful educational animal use include ethically-sourced cadavers, models, mannequins, mechanical simulators, videos, computer and virtual reality simulations, and supervised clinical and surgical experiences. In many life and health sciences courses, however, traditional animal use persists, often due to uncertainty about the educational efficacy of humane alternatives. The most recent comprehensive reviews assessing learning outcomes of humane teaching methods, in comparison to harmful animal use, were published more than 10 years ago. Therefore, we aimed to collate and analyse the combined evidence from recent and older studies about the efficacy of humane teaching methods. Using specific search terms, we systematically searched the Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EMBASE databases for relevant educational studies. We extracted information on publication years, the country in which the study was conducted, field, humane teaching methods, form of learning outcome assessment, and the learning outcome of the humane teaching methods, in comparison with harmful animal use. We found 50 relevant studies published from 1968–2020, primarily stemming from the USA, UK, and Canada. Humane teaching methods produced learning outcomes superior (30%), equivalent (60%), or inferior (10%) to those produced by traditional harmful animal use. In conclusion, a wide-spread implementation of humane teaching methods would not only preserve learning outcomes, but may in fact be beneficial for animals, students, educators, and institutions. MDPI 2021-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7827170/ /pubmed/33430457 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11010114 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Zemanova, Miriam A.
Knight, Andrew
The Educational Efficacy of Humane Teaching Methods: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
title The Educational Efficacy of Humane Teaching Methods: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
title_full The Educational Efficacy of Humane Teaching Methods: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
title_fullStr The Educational Efficacy of Humane Teaching Methods: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
title_full_unstemmed The Educational Efficacy of Humane Teaching Methods: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
title_short The Educational Efficacy of Humane Teaching Methods: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
title_sort educational efficacy of humane teaching methods: a systematic review of the evidence
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33430457
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11010114
work_keys_str_mv AT zemanovamiriama theeducationalefficacyofhumaneteachingmethodsasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT knightandrew theeducationalefficacyofhumaneteachingmethodsasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT zemanovamiriama educationalefficacyofhumaneteachingmethodsasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT knightandrew educationalefficacyofhumaneteachingmethodsasystematicreviewoftheevidence