Wiki use and challenges in undergraduate medical education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context and setting A ‘wiki’ is a particular type of web page, the contents of which can be edited by anyone. Content ‘evolves’ and grows through repetitive edits, additions and deletions by different users, making wikis interesting for the collection and dissemination of information. Vandalism is not deemed an issue because changes are easily reversible by any user. To promote the critical appraisal of information, team collaborations and conflict mediation in the event of a disagreement, each wiki article has a discussion page appended to it. The archetypal wiki is Wikipedia.org, a vast online encyclopaedia that is dependent on its audience for content and accuracy. Technology plays an important role in medical education at the University of Ottawa. Students use tablet computers, web-based presentations, personal digital assistants and online resources, including Wikipedia. In addition, students share files containing well-organised information that they have collected, summarised or produced themselves. Such files have been passed down through the years and have progressively been updated and improved, much in the manner of a wiki. Why the idea was necessary Medical educators must cover a tremendous volume of information during the first 2 years of medical training. To meet the demands of content coverage, lecturers often prioritise the enumeration of key concepts at the cost of integration, both within specific subjects and between different subjects in the curriculum. To address these gaps, a wiki was created to provide students with a resource that could support intra- and inter-subject integration. What was done Medswiki.ca was created by two Year 2 medical students using the framework provided by http://www.wikispaces.com. The wiki was populated with sample articles using students’ class notes, literature reviews and clinical publication RSS feeds. To facilitate de novo contribution, topic-specific templates were created with headings suggesting potential content. The wiki was made available to Year 1 medical students who could view, add, change or delete any content. Daily statistics were collected for page views, visitors, edits, editors and discussion messages. Qualitatively, student perception of the wiki’s usefulness was assessed through focus group discussions. Evaluation of results and impact MedsWiki was not frequently used by Year 1 students (test population, n = 152). The day the wiki was presented to the class yielded the largest amount of page views (714) and unique visitors (90). These numbers tapered off rapidly as the weeks progressed (weeks 2–6: average daily views = 28, average daily visitors = 6.9). The lone edit was performed during the fourth week of the block. There were no discussion messages left by students. Analysis of focus group transcripts identified three main factors that impeded use and contribution: (i) participants had difficulty accessing MedsWiki; (ii) current wiki content did not meet participants’ academic needs, and (iii) participants were not sufficiently confident in their knowledge to contribute to the wiki. All of the participants in the focus groups reported that the wiki could be a useful tool for their education with a few modifications, such as integration into pre-existing web tools, increased quantity of content, and content targeted to faculty learning objectives.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,073 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».