Comparing self‐guided learning and educator‐guided learning formats for simulation‐based clinical training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In this paper, we tested the over-arching hypothesis that progressive self-guided learning offers equivalent learning benefit vs. proficiency-based training while limiting the need to set proficiency standards. BACKGROUND: We have shown that self-guided learning is enhanced when students learn on simulators that progressively increase in fidelity during practice. Proficiency-based training, a current gold-standard training approach, requires achievement of a criterion score before students advance to the next learning level. METHODS: Baccalaureate nursing students (n = 15/group) practised intravenous catheterization using simulators that differed in fidelity (i.e. students' perceived realism). Data were collected in 2008. Proficiency-based students advanced from low- to mid- to high-fidelity after achieving a proficiency criterion at each level. Progressive students self-guided their progression from low- to mid- to high-fidelity. Yoked control students followed an experimenter-defined progressive practice schedule. Open-ended students moved freely between the simulators. One week after practice, blinded experts evaluated students' skill transfer on a standardized patient simulation. Group differences were examined using analyses of variance. RESULTS: Proficiency-based students scored highest on the high-fidelity post-test (effect size = 1.22). An interaction effect showed that the Progressive and Open-ended groups maintained their performance from post-test to transfer test, whereas the Proficiency-based and Yoked control groups experienced a significant decrease (P < 0.05). Surprisingly, most Open-ended students (73%) chose the progressive practice schedule. CONCLUSION: Progressive training and proficiency-based training resulted in equivalent transfer test performance, suggesting that progressive students effectively self-guided when to transition between simulators. Students' preference for the progressive practice schedule indicates that educators should consider this sequence for simulation-based training.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".