Inquiry‐based learning: an instructional alternative for occupational therapy education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An inquiry-based learning (IBL) approach was used as the model of instruction in one of three sections offered annually to large introductory occupational therapy classes in a Canadian university during 1994/5, 1995/6, 1996/7. Students' final grades in this pre-entry course form part of the grade point average on which admission to the BSc OT programme is based. The IBL model was employed to (1) increase the amount of student-directed learning, (2) increase the amount of independent problem-solving, (3) increase student-instructor interaction within the learning situation, and (4) reduce the number of in-class hours for students. This study is an evaluation of whether students from the IBL sections would subsequently do as well as those from other sections in selected junior professional courses. Students from the three IBL sections (n=47) were peer matched to students who had completed other sections of the introductory course, but were part of the same admission cohort (n=68). Their grades in three junior professional courses were compared at the end of their first year in the BSc OT programme. Results indicated that students from the IBL sections did at least as well as those from other sections where a different instructional approach was used, and those from the IBL sections in 1994/5 and 1996/7 each did significantly better on two of the junior professional courses used as the outcome measure: therapeutic occupation and assessment and evaluation techniques. Students reported that the IBL experience stimulated them to learn more about the field, helped them develop problem-solving skills in relation to occupational therapy, and enabled them to learn more about career opportunities in occupational therapy. Mature students were more positive about the IBL approach than students in their first year of university.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".