Fostering Critical Thinking Skills in Students with Learning Disabilities through Online Problem-Based Learning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a pedagogical approach, problem-based learning (PBL) has shown success for average and gifted students (HmeloSiver, 2004) and there are numerous incentives for its implementation in online learning environments (Savid-Baden, 2007; Chernobilsky, Nagarajan, & Hmelo-Silver, 2005). However, little research has been conducted regarding the impact of problem-based learning on higher order thinking skills of students with learning disabilities studying in online learning environments. This study examines the effects of an online problem-based learning course on critical thinking skills of university students with learning disabilities. Students participating in the study will be taking their first course in an online Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Drawing on triangulation, this study includes a content analysis of reflective journals, a video analysis of a problem-based learning objective (PBLO) and semi-structured interviews with repertory grids, to observe the presence or absence of critical thinking skills among students with learning disabilities in an online PBL course.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".