MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2401646966

Problem based learning in the 3rd world context.

2001· article· en· W2401646966 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. Zaman

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueProblem and Project Based Learning
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineContext (archaeology)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Problem based learning (PBL) was first introduced into the medical curriculum by the Case Western University of USA and the Mc Master University of Canada in the late sixties.This example was followed by the University of Liniber at Maastricht in Netherlands and University of Newcastle in Australia 1 .The University of Manchester introduced first PBL in 1994, after the publication of the General Medical Council's document, Tomorrow's Doctors, which recommended that medical education should foster, "learning through curiosity and exploration of knowledge and critical evaluation".The McMaster University programme, was developed by the neurologist Howard Barrows in collaboration with others, in response to poor knowledge that medical students displayed during their neurology clerkship.According to Maudsley 2 , PBL was recommended "as a(not the)" major method of undergraduate medical education, to rectify this deficiency.In PBL students are divided into small groups of 5 or 6 (upper limit 12) and given a "clinical" problem to solve.At this stage they have little if any knowledge of basic sciences, as PBL starts from the beginning of the course.They are required to acquire this knowledge, as they proceed to study the case, with no teacher intervention.The institution provides resources to accomplish this, in form of library and computer facilities, photograph displays, self-learning material, anatomical models, histopathology slides and a good pathology museum 3 .There is no doubt that this early clinical exposure is a healthy departure from the traditional programme, which students appreciate.Each group has a "facilitator" or a tutor who only acts as a guide any may even be a "non-expert".The use of a "non-expert", has however been criticized by students in one of the surveys done at the University of Manchester and they prefer an expert to be in charge 4 .It is claimed that PBL gives the students, cognitive skills for the early development of medical expertise and thus to make them eventually into better doctors 5 .Maudsley 2 states that inspite of a large amount of literature on PBL, its definitions remains "elusive" and its relationship to "problem solving" unclear.The term "case-based" learning, appears to be more appropriate, as the new learning process utilizes cases-real or simulated.The latter being trained subjects portraying features of illness or other abnormalities.Using this material the students learn to take medical histories on these "patients" and to practice physical examination.In some schools, e.g., Manchester the number of lectures have been drastically reduced, and the bulk of training is now by PBL.Generally, the anti-lecture attitude is based on the view, that lectures are "teacher-centered" and unsuitable for student needs, implying that the interest of teachers and students, for some unspecified reason, are in conflict with each other!It is also claimed that lectures lead to rote learning (memorizing without understanding) and the information given is soon forgotten.To emphaze this point, examples are often given of poor lecturers, who read from prepared texts and should not be in the teaching profession in the first place!In reality a well-planed and interactive lecture, is probably the most cost effective way of delivering information to a large audience.A good lecturer is in constant eye contact with the students and quickly responds to their needs.He explains the problem so that rote learning does not occur.In many medical schools PBL and lectures are now used in hybrid arrangement at the National University of Singapore (NUS), with which I am familiar, PBL forms 20% of the medical programme 6 .At Harvard there is one-hour lecture every day but the lecturers are asked to incorporate material that they do not think will have been covered in group sessions 7 .PBL and the traditional lecture is not a dysfunctional marriage, and there is no reason why the existing structure should be totally dismantled

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,048

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,007
Communication savante0,0120,005
Science ouverte0,0010,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetProblem and Project Based LearningTravaux en français237 207