Impact of problem-based learning in a large classroom setting: student perception and problem-solving skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem-based learning (PBL) can be described as a learning environment where the problem drives the learning. This technique usually involves learning in small groups, which are supervised by tutors. It is becoming evident that PBL in a small-group setting has a robust positive effect on student learning and skills, including better problem-solving skills and an increase in overall motivation. However, very little research has been done on the educational benefits of PBL in a large classroom setting. Here, we describe a PBL approach (using tutorless groups) that was introduced as a supplement to standard didactic lectures in University of British Columbia Okanagan undergraduate biochemistry classes consisting of 45-85 students. PBL was chosen as an effective method to assist students in learning biochemical and physiological processes. By monitoring student attendance and using informal and formal surveys, we demonstrated that PBL has a significant positive impact on student motivation to attend and participate in the course work. Student responses indicated that PBL is superior to traditional lecture format with regard to the understanding of course content and retention of information. We also demonstrated that student problem-solving skills are significantly improved, but additional controlled studies are needed to determine how much PBL exercises contribute to this improvement. These preliminary data indicated several positive outcomes of using PBL in a large classroom setting, although further studies aimed at assessing student learning are needed to further justify implementation of this technique in courses delivered to large undergraduate classes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".