MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2646604880 · doi:10.22329/celt.v10i0.4748

Student Motivation in Response to Problem-based Learning

2017· article· en· W2646604880 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sherry Fukuzawa, Cleo Boyd, Joel Cahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject matterMathematics educationPsychologyProblem-based learningCurriculumActive learning (machine learning)Student engagementCritical thinkingSubject (documents)Cooperative learningTeaching methodPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a self-directed learning strategy where students work collaboratively in small groups to investigate open-ended relatable case scenarios. Students develop transferable skills that can be applied across disciplines, such as collaboration, problem-solving and critical thinking. Despite the extensive research on problem-based learning, an examination of variables that affect student engagement through the implementation of PBL is lacking (Savin-Baden, 2014; 2016). Our research question examined student motivation during problem-based learning implementation in an undergraduate anthropology course (N = 49) with students with diverse subject matter experience and no previous exposure to active learning. Student motivation was examined through surveys, peer-evaluations, and self-reflection exercises. The results showed that student motivation was higher in students with more subject matter experience at the beginning of the course. During the course, motivation decreased in relation to subject matter experience, but by the end of the course the majority of students (76.7%) increased their motivation toward problem-based learning. Based on their subject matter experience, we were surprised that a particular subset of students had low motivation at the end of the course (78%). We discuss some challenges of implementing problem-based learning in a traditional curriculum, and provide suggestions to successfully implement PBL for diverse student populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations65
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207