MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600939863 · doi:10.1111/medu.13267

Monitoring and regulation of learning in medical education: the need for predictive cues

2017· review· en· W2600939863 on OpenAlexaff
Anique B. H. de Bruin, John Dunlosky, Rodrigo B. Cavalcanti

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsPsychologyMedical educationPredictive validityMEDLINEMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Being able to accurately monitor learning activities is a key element in self-regulated learning in all settings, including medical schools. Yet students' ability to monitor their progress is often limited, leading to inefficient use of study time. Interventions that improve the accuracy of students' monitoring can optimise self-regulated learning, leading to higher achievement. This paper reviews findings from cognitive psychology and explores potential applications in medical education, as well as areas for future research. COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY: Effective monitoring depends on students' ability to generate information ('cues') that accurately reflects their knowledge and skills. The ability of these 'cues' to predict achievement is referred to as 'cue diagnosticity'. Interventions that improve the ability of students to elicit predictive cues typically fall into two categories: (i) self-generation of cues and (ii) generation of cues that is delayed after self-study. Providing feedback and support is useful when cues are predictive but may be too complex to be readily used. APPLICATION TO MEDICAL EDUCATION: Limited evidence exists about interventions to improve the accuracy of self-monitoring among medical students or trainees. Developing interventions that foster use of predictive cues can enhance the accuracy of self-monitoring, thereby improving self-study and clinical reasoning. First, insight should be gained into the characteristics of predictive cues used by medical students and trainees. Next, predictive cue prompts should be designed and tested to improve monitoring and regulation of learning. Finally, the use of predictive cues should be explored in relation to teaching and learning clinical reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Improving self-regulated learning is important to help medical students and trainees efficiently acquire knowledge and skills necessary for clinical practice. Interventions that help students generate and use predictive cues hold the promise of improved self-regulated learning and achievement. This framework is applicable to learning in several areas, including the development of clinical reasoning.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations109
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207