Moving from a lecture-based to a problem-based learning curriculum-perceptions of preparedness for practice
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
Objectives: A comprehensive evaluation plan was designed to investigate the effect of curricular change from a lecture-based to a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum. The objective of this paper is to describe the results of three surveys that examined perceptions of preparation for practice by three stakeholder groups. Method: Three survey instruments were designed to obtain opinions regarding preparation for practice from graduating students, preceptors and supervisors/employers from three curricula that were in place as the PBL curriculum was being implemented. Results: The students graduating from the PBL curriculum perceived themselves to be equally or better prepared than did the students graduating from the other two curricula in a number of activities/competencies. Results from the preceptors and supervisors/employers did not identify any significant differences among the curricula. Conclusions: The survey results provide some data suggesting that the outcomes-based, integrated, hybrid PBL curriculum prepares students for practice as well as, or better, in a number of areas than the lecture-based curriculum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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