MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1548696804 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v7i3.248

A Pilot Study of Problem Formulation and Resolution in an Online Problem-based Learning Course

2006· article· en· W1548696804 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProblem-based learningContext (archaeology)Computer scienceAsynchronous communicationResolution (logic)Mathematics educationProcess (computing)Exploratory researchOnline courseCourse (navigation)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses an exploratory study to investigate the existence, and nature, of student problem formulation and resolution processes in an undergraduate online Problem-Based Learning (PBL) course in Agricultural Sciences. We report on the use of a content analysis instrument developed to measure problem formulation and resolution (PFR) processes in online asynchronous discussions (Murphy, 2004a, 2004b) to analyze students' text-based, online discussions. The results offer evidence that students do engage in problem formulation and resolution and that these processes appear to be consistent with the PBL process carried out in this course. However, the nature of the PBL pedagogy, at least in this instructional context, ties the PBL problems to be solved tightly to a marked assignment structure and, therefore, appears to restrict the PFR process in its early and late stages.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it