Comparing different methods of learning in the development of social accountability and CanMEDS roles in medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractObjective: Medical students at the University of British Columbia undertake a population health course that aims to cultivate social accountability and CanMEDS roles. Students choose between Discussion Group Option (DGO), Community Service Learning Option (CSLO), or Self-Directed Project Option (SDPO). The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of these three different learning options in developing social accountability and CanMEDS roles in medical students. Methods: Expert consultation and literature review were undertaken to develop a self-report survey. Students who had completed the course from 2009 to 2013 were surveyed. The results were analyzed to evaluate differences between groups.Results: We recruited 168 participants with equal representation from each option. CSLO and SDPO students reported greater development of social accountability and CanMEDS roles from the course compared to DGO students. In addition, CSLO and SDPO students reported greater academic output and satisfaction from their experience.Conclusion: Students who participated in community-based or project-based learning reported significantly better acquisition of social accountability and CanMEDS roles compared to students who engaged in group discussion. RésuméObjectif: Les étudiants en médecine de l’Université de la Colombie-Britannique suivent un cours sur la santé de la population qui vise à cultiver la responsabilité sociale et les rôles CanMEDS. Les étudiants choisissent entre l’option de discussion de groupe (DGO, de l’anglais), l’option d’apprentissage par l’engagement communautaire (CSLO, de l’anglais) ou l’option de projet autonome (SDPO, de l’anglais). L’objectif de cette étude était d’évaluer l’efficacité de ces trois options d’apprentissage différentes pour le développement de la responsabilité sociale et des rôles CanMEDS chez les étudiants en médecine. Méthodes: Des consultations d’experts et une revue de la littérature ont été entreprises afin de concevoir un sondage d’autodéclaration. Les étudiants ayant complété le cours de 2009 à 2013 ont été interrogés. Les résultats ont été analysés afin d’évaluer les différences entre les groupes.Résultats: Nous avons recruté 168 participants, avec une représentation égale pour chaque option. Les étudiants des groupes CSLO et SDPO ont déclaré plus de développement de leur sens de responsabilité sociale et des rôles CanMEDS à la suite du cours, en comparaison aux étudiants du groupe DGO. De plus, les étudiants des groupes CSLO et SDPO ont rapporté un plus grand nombre de réalisations scolaires et une meilleure satisfaction par rapport à leur expérience. Conclusion: Les étudiants qui ont participé à l’apprentissage par l’engagement communautaire ou par l’entremise d’un projet autonome ont rapporté une acquisition nettement meilleure de la responsabilité sociale et des rôles CanMEDS, en comparaison aux étudiants qui ont participé à une discussion de groupe.
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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".