Worked examples for teaching electrocardiogram interpretation: Salient or discriminatory features?
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.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: Cognitive load theory states that one way to optimise learning is to decrease extraneous cognitive load, defined as information not relevant to task completion. Worked examples, which show the learner the logic behind the solving of a problem, can decrease extraneous load. However, there is little research to guide the optimal formatting of worked examples. METHODS: In a crossover design, first-year medical students were randomised to worked examples of bradycardias with salient features first and tachycardias with discriminatory features second (n = 33) or worked examples of bradycardias with discriminatory features first and tachycardias with salient features second (n = 32). After each learning phase, participants completed a testing phase. Diagnostic accuracy and reported cognitive load were compared between the two worked example formats, as well as with data for a group of historical controls, consisting of medical students interpreting electrocardiogram rhythms without worked examples. Each module concluded with a questionnaire in which the learner was asked to rate his or her perceptions of the difficulty of the core content, the clarity with which the information was presented, and perceived learning. RESULTS: Worked examples highlighting salient and discriminatory features were associated with similar levels of diagnostic accuracy (56% and 60%, respectively; P = .32). Both worked example conditions were associated with higher diagnostic accuracy than was found in historical controls (P < .0001). There was no difference in the extraneous load experienced between worked examples highlighting salient features and those highlighting discriminatory features (12.5 ± 6.1 and 11.9 ± 6.1, respectively; P = .52). Participants reported greater intrinsic load in the worked examples highlighting salient rather than discriminatory features (17.1 ± 4.9 and 15.5 ± 4.6, respectively; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Discriminatory feature-based worked examples were associated with less intrinsic cognitive load, but this did not translate into any meaningful difference in diagnostic performance. Instruction with worked examples improved diagnostic performance regardless of whether salient or discriminatory features were highlighted.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
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 découle