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 OpenAlexaff
Sandra Davidson, Laurie Candy

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorldviews on Evidence-Based NursingSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207