PBL Core Skills Faculty Development Workshop 1: An Experiential Exercise with the PBL Process
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
This report describes the first in a series of foundation-building faculty development workshops focused on the instructional methodology of problem-based learning (PBL). The PBL Process workshop reported here introduced the learning theory topics supporting PBL and utilized an extended roleplay method to provide participants with personal experience with the PBL learning cycle. Overall, participants were satisfied with the methods and content of the workshop. A majority of survey respondents indicated that simulating a complete iteration of the PBL process was an effective way to learn about PBL. Participants expressed relatively greater difficulty understanding and performing activities related to qualitative assessment of learning processes. The workshop was developed to align with adult learning principles, and continued refinement of the workshop has enhanced the learning theory components underpinning PBL as well as the experiential aspects. These dual goals have resulted in blending the existing experiential workshop with an online distance-learning component addressing the learning theory topics relevant to PBL pedagogy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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