MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094120346 · doi:10.1159/000088999

Education for Practice in the UK and Ireland: Implementing Problem-Based Learning

2005· article· en· W2094120346 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret M. Leahy, B. Dodd, Irene Walsh, Kristen L. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueFolia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProblem-based learningMedical educationRelevance (law)PsychologySpeech-Language PathologyMedicinePedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This paper outlines the education of speech and language therapists in the UK and Ireland, and presents a preliminary study of student therapists' perceptions of problem-based learning (PBL) as a learning strategy in preparation for clinical work. PBL has been used extensively in medical and dental education in Europe, in Canada, and in the Middle East, and has been applied to speech and language therapist education in Sweden and in Australia. Its implementation in the UK and Ireland is relatively new. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was circulated to students in two centres via e-mail. Questions posed included student impressions of the most and least useful elements of PBL in their preparation for clinical practice, as well as how they considered improvements could be made; student reflections regarding PBL were also sought. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the implementation of PBL in the education of speech and language therapists, with more experienced students showing more positive support for PBL. Issues raised by the study include emphasis on clinical relevance of problems, particularly in the early years of the course. The majority of students regarded PBL as directly relevant for clinical preparation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFolia Phoniatrica et LogopaedicaSame topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207