Measuring group function in problem-based learning: development of a reflection tool
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
BACKGROUND: Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogy involving self-directed learning in small groups around case problems. Group function is important to PBL outcomes, but there is currently poor scaffolding around key self-reflective practices that necessarily precedes students' and tutors' attempts to improve group function. This study aims to create a structured, literature-based and stakeholder-informed tool to help anchor reflective practices on group function. This article reports on the development process and perceived utility of this tool. METHODS: Tool development unfolded in four steps: 1) a literature review was conducted to identify existent evaluation tools for group function in PBL, 2) literature findings informed the development of this new tool, 3) a group of PBL experts were consulted for engagement with and feedback of the tool, 4) four focus groups of stakeholders (medical students and tutors with lived PBL experiences) commented on the tool's constructs, language, and perceived utility. The tool underwent two rounds of revisions, informed by the feedback from experts and stakeholders. RESULTS: Nineteen scales relating to group function assessment were identified in the literature, lending 18 constructs that mapped into four dimensions: Learning Climate, Facilitation and Process, Engagement and Interactivity, and Evaluation and Group Improvement. Feedback from experts informed the addition of missing items. Focus group discussions allowed further fine-tuning of the organization and language of the tool. The final tool contains 17 descriptive items under the four dimensions. Users are asked to rate each dimension holistically on a 7-point Likert scale and provide open comments. Researchers, faculty, and students highlighted three functions the tool could perform: (1) create space, structure, and language for feedback processes, (2) act as a reference, resource, or memory aid, and (3) serve as a written record for longitudinal benchmarking. They commented that the tool may be particularly helpful for inexperienced and poor-functioning groups, and indicated some practical implementation considerations. CONCLUSION: A four-dimension tool to assist group function reflection in PBL was produced. Its constructs were well supported by literature and experts. Faculty and student stakeholders acknowledged the utility of this tool in addressing an acknowledged gap in group function reflection in PBL.
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 | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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