MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns and Rates of Learning in Two Problem-Based Learning Courses Using Outcome Based Assessment and Elaboration Theory

2012· article· en· W2116222560 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Usha Kuruganti, Ted Needham, Pierre Zundel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SudburyUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElaborationTransferabilityContext (archaeology)Grading (engineering)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceMathematics educationComputer scienceMachine learningHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of “practice makes perfect” was examined in this work in the context of effective learning. Specifically, we wanted to know how much practice was needed for students to demonstrate mastery of learning outcomes. Student learning patterns in two different university courses that use a similar education approach involving problem based learning, outcomes based assessment, and problem sequencing based on elaboration theory were examined. Learning outcomes for each course were explicitly defined and students were repeatedly assessed through sequential assignments. The cumulative proportion of criteria successfully demonstrated for each problem-solving attempt was determined using data retrospectively obtained from instructor grading records. Learning followed a typical growth pattern - it increased rapidly at first and more slowly with succeeding attempts. The precise shape of the learning curve differed between the two courses and is thought to be the result of problem difficulty and problem sequencing. Depending on these two factors, at least one more attempt than the number of times criteria need to be demonstrated is required and often more are needed to demonstrate mastery. This paper presents class-level data and future work should investigate individual performance and particularly why some students learn more quickly than others. Two additional issues for future consideration are the effect of the number of attempts on long-term retention and on the transferability of the learning to other problems. Les chercheurs se penchent sur le concept selon lequel c’est en pratiquant qu’on atteint la perfection en contexte d’apprentissage efficace. Plus précisément, ils cherchent à savoir à quel point les étudiants doivent s’exercer avant d’atteindre les objectifs d’apprentissage. Les chercheurs ont examiné les modèles d’apprentissage des étudiants dans deux cours universitaires différents qui utilisent une approche pédagogique similaire axée sur l’apprentissage par problèmes, l’évaluation des résultats et le séquençage des problèmes axé sur la théorie de l’élaboration. Les résultats d’apprentissage ont été explicitement définis et les étudiants ont été évalués à plusieurs reprises grâce à des évaluations séquentielles. Les chercheurs ont déterminé la proportion cumulative de critères remplis pour chaque tentative de résolution de problèmes à l’aide de données obtenues rétrospectivement à partir des dossiers de notes de l’enseignant. L’apprentissage a suivi un modèle de croissance typique, c’est-à-dire qu’il a tout d’abord augmenté rapidement, puis ’a un rythme décroissant avec l’ajout de tentatives additionnelles. La forme précise de la courbe d’apprentissage était différente d’un cours à l’autre et les chercheurs pensent qu’elle est attribuable à la difficulté des problèmes et à leur séquençage. En fonction de ces deux facteurs, il faut au moins un essai de plus que le nombre requis pour respecter les critères, et parfois plus, pour démontrer qu’il y a maîtrise des objectifs d’apprentissage. Le présent article présente les données liées à la classe dans son ensemble. Les prochains travaux devraient se pencher sur la performance individuelle et particulièrement sur les raisons expliquant pourquoi certains étudiants apprennent plus vite que d’autres. Les deux autres questions à considérer sont l’effet du nombre d’essais sur la rétention à long terme et sur la transférabilité de l’apprentissage à d’autres problèmes.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207