MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2884563407

Communication in problem based learning

2018· dissertation· en· W2884563407 sur OpenAlex
Pauline Bryant

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueUEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) · 2018
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBrainstormingProblem-based learningConversationEnthusiasmMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCommunicationSocial psychology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Problem Based Learning (PBL) is one of the many ways that undergraduates are supported to learn in Norwich Medical School. PBL is an instructional design model that was first introduced into medical schools in Canada in the 1960s. Theoretical arguments were put forward in the medical education literature that claimed PBL was a revolutionary, new and superior learning method. The method attracted considerable enthusiasm, but it also attracted controversy. Descriptions of the process were diverse and the pedagogy was illusive. Never the less, it subsequently spread worldwide, and thousands of medical students now learn in PBL groups.
\n
\nThe purpose of my research was to explore PBL at Norwich medical school and to find ways to improve it. My focus was on communication in PBL tutorials, and the aim was to identify communicative elements that realised and hindered effective dialogue. 
\n
\nThe objectives were to 
\n
\n1) Consider the theoretical framework of PBL and explore enablers and barriers to effective dialogue, 
\n2) Consider the learning environment of the PBL tutorial, particularly brainstorming, and identify ways in which to maximise the learning opportunities, 
\n3) Determine how this knowledge can be used to facilitate effective dialogue to take place between learners in PBL. 
\n
\nThe main research question was; 
\n
\nWhat communicative strategies can be used by tutors to enhance elaborative dialogue to take place in brainstorming in Problem Based Learning tutorials? 
\n
\nUsing elements of Conversation Analysis (CA), I explored communication in PBL. Focusing particularly on brainstorming, I identified specific communicative elements that were used by tutors to facilitate elaborative dialogue. Elaborative dialogue, in which students explain their thinking, appears to be of particular importance in the learning and understanding of concepts. Elaboration includes; 
\n
\na) Verbalising conceptual understanding, 
\nb) Identifying conflicting information, 
\nc) Co-construction of understanding, 
\nd) Answering/ asking relevant questions, 
\n
\nIt is clear that the extent to which students benefit from working in small groups depends on the quality of interaction between students within the group. I identified communicative elements that were inhibitory to elaborative dialogue. In addition, I identified that there were contextual factors that inhibited communication between students in the tutorials for example, students were expected to chair tutorials, but they struggled to perform the role. 
\n
\nThe findings from my study are useful for PBL tutors who can use these elements of conversation analysis to examine their own practices; for example, tutors can audio record a section of a PBL tutorial, and identify their own questioning techniques that have promoted useful dialogue between learners, and reflect on their practice. This conversation analysis method can be applied to other small group teaching methods in other disciplines and by other organisations. I hope this will serve as a starting point to encourage individual tutors and institutions to explore ways to enhance communication in PBL tutorial groups and enrich the learning experiences for students.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,543
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,576

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,252
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · 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