Learner Perspectives of Online Problem-Based Learning and Applications from Cognitive Load Theory
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
Problem-based learning (PBL) courses have historically been situated in physical classrooms involving in-person interactions. As online learning is embraced in higher education, programs that use PBL can integrate online platforms to support curriculum delivery and facilitate student engagement. This report describes student perspectives of the online PBL experience, interpreted through the lens of Cognitive Load Theory. Fifty-two undergraduate health professional students participated in this descriptive survey. The responses revealed that, overall, learners perceived the platform to be suitable for conducting online PBL, that distractions in the online environment were no greater than those experienced in physical classroom, and that online PBL was as effective as in-class PBL for learning. In online PBL, the technological capabilities and limitations of the online platform were identified by students as the key sources of hindrances and facilitators to learning. Suggestions for implementing online PBL using instructional principles from Cognitive Load Theory and multimedia learning are offered.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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