MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277237219 · doi:10.14297/jpaap.v4i1.194

Problem-based Learning and Theories of Teaching and Learning in Health Professional Education

2016· article· en· W2277237219 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive learning (machine learning)Problem-based learningExperiential learningLearning sciencesOpen learningCurriculumProfessional learning communityMathematics educationCooperative learningPsychologyLearning theoryPedagogyTeaching and learning centerTeaching methodComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although problem-based learning (PBL) has been linked to several theories of teaching and learning, how these theories are applied remains unclear. The objective of this paper is to explore how theories of teaching and learning relate to and can inform problem-based learning within health professional education programs. We conducted a scoping review on current theories of teaching and learning and considered their relevancy to the problem-based learning approach. The findings suggest that no single theory of teaching and learning can fully represent the complexity of learning in PBL. Recognizing the complexity of the PBL environment and the fluidity between theories of teaching and learning, we proposed eight principles from across 11 theories of teaching and learning that can inform how PBL is operationalised in university-based health professional education: 1) Adult learners are independent and self-directed; 2) Adult learners are goal oriented and internally motivated; 3) Learning is most effective when it is applicable to practice; 4) Cognitive processes support learning; 5) Learning is active and requires active engagement; 6) Interaction between learners supports learning; 7) Activation of prior knowledge and experience supports learning; and 8) Elaboration and reflection supports learning. These eight principles provide the foundation for curriculum design recommendations relevant to PBL within university-based education programs. Specifically, our findings suggest that active engagement and interactions should be encouraged, that students should be prompted to activate their prior knowledge and experiences, and that elaboration and reflection on learning is critical. The small group format of PBL can facilitate this engagement if students question each other, consider alternative perspectives, and are actively involved in setting learning objectives. Further research is needed to develop the empirical basis for these principles and examine if PBL is an effective approach for implementing these principles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.377 · 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