MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316676760 · doi:10.1111/wvn.12152

Teaching EBP Using Game‐Based Learning: Improving the Student Experience

2016· review· en· W2316676760 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

VenueWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisStudent engagementMedical educationNarrativePsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyMedicineQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is considered a key entry to practice competency for nurses. However, many baccalaureate nursing programs continue to teach "traditional" nursing research courses that fail to address many of the critical knowledge, skills, and attitudes that foster EBP. Traditional classroom teaching strategies do little to promote the development of competencies critical for engaging in EBP in clinical contexts. PURPOSE AND GOALS: The purpose of this work was to develop, implement, and evaluate an innovative teaching strategy aimed at improving student learning, engagement and satisfaction in an online EBP course. The goals of this paper are to: (1) describe the process of course development, (2) describe the innovative teaching strategy, and (3) discuss the outcomes of the pilot course offered using game-based learning. METHODS: A midterm course-specific survey and standard institutional end of course evaluations were used to evaluate student satisfaction. Game platform analytics and thematic analysis of narrative comments in the midterm and end of course surveys were used to evaluate students' level of engagement. Student learning was evaluated using the end of course letter grade. RESULTS: Students indicated a high satisfaction with the course. Student engagement was also maintained throughout the course. The majority of students (87%, 26/30) continued to complete learning quests in the game after achieving the minimum amount of points to earn an A. Seven students completed every learning quest available in the game platform. Of the 30 students enrolled in the course, 17 students earned a final course grade of A+ and 13 earned an A. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Provide students with timely, individualized feedback to enable mastery learning. Create student choice and customization of learning. Integrate the use of badges (game mechanics) to increase engagement and motivation. Level learning activities to build on each other and create flow.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.447
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.159 · 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