Problem-based learning in occupational therapy curriculum – implications and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Problem-based learning (PBL) is an educational method that fosters self-directed study in small groups. The purpose of this study was to describe the Tel Aviv University's occupational therapy (OT) program and the challenges implementing such program. In addition, the study compared the PBL grades obtained by students who are native Hebrew speakers with those students who are native Arabic speakers; and, assessed the correlation between the grades in the PBL course and the grades in the clinical fieldwork studies. METHOD: 166-second year OT undergraduate students participated. All completed three PBL courses and seven weeks of clinical fieldwork studies. Data collection included students' grades in PBL course (based on PBL evaluation forms) and in clinical fieldwork studies (based on preceptor's evaluation and a written assignment). RESULTS: Pearson correlations revealed significant correlations between PBL grades and clinical fieldwork studies grades. T-test analysis between students who are native Hebrew speakers and those who are native Arabic speakers revealed significant differences in PBL grades. CONCLUSIONS: Findings imply partial congruence between students' grades in the PBL course and their achievements in the fieldwork studies. Findings might suggest that adjustments should be made in order to assist students from minorities (challenged by language requirements) in gaining higher grades in the PBL program. Implications for Rehabilitation Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an educational method, which fosters independent, self-directed study in small groups. PBL studies have the potential to prepare students for their clinical experience during studies. The PBL program should be adjusted for students from minorities (challenged by language requirements and different cultural backgrounds) in order to assist them in gaining more benefits from the program.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".