Concept map analysis in the assessment of speech-language pathology students’ learning in a problem-based learning curriculum: A longitudinal study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to track students' critical thinking performance longitudinally through concept map analysis in a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum. Concept map analysis has been employed in the assessment of students' critical thinking in medical education. Little is known concerning concept mapping (CM) in speech-language pathology (SLP) education. In this quantitative study, students in a 4-year SLP education program (N = 38) were followed until the completion of a fully-integrated PBL curriculum from Years 1 to 3. Students' concept maps were analyzed using a tool developed for this study, the Concept Map Assessment Profile (CMAP). There was an increase in concept map scores across the 3 years at the beginning of the academic year. The CM performance over the 3 years predicted 21.0% to 33.6% of variance in three measures of learning outcomes. The CMAP is a reliable measure, with strong inter-rater and intra-rater reliability (r = 0.85 and r = 0.96, respectively). In addition to its use as an assessment tool, the CMAP might be used to facilitate students' learning as feedback concerning strengths and weaknesses in the development of critical thinking can be provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it