MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801484112 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v8n10p11

Problem-based Learning: Nursing students’ attitude, self-reported competence, tutorial performance and self-directed learning readiness

2018· article· en· W2801484112 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBachelorCompetence (human resources)Problem-based learningMedical educationPsychologyNursingAutodidacticismCertaintyMedicineHealth careDescriptive researchMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives: Problem-based learning (PBL) is widely recognized as progressive pedagogy for the preparation of a range of health professionals. Despite the prominence of PBL in contemporary discussions about the education of future health professionals, its value is increasingly being contested in light of shrinking resources and increasing student enrolments in universities. The objectives were to ascertain Bachelor of Nursing (BN) students’ attitude towards the value of PBL as a learning strategy; to determine BN students’ degree of certainty about their competence in PBL processes; to determine whether student performance in PBL tutorials improve over four years of study; and to compare the self-directed learning readiness of PBL students to those who are not exposed to PBL.Methods: The study followed a descriptive and comparative survey design to collect the data. Participants were BN students who were invited to participate in the descriptive survey (n = 92), and purposively selected (n = 159) for comparison between PBL (n = 54) and non-PBL (n = 105) groups.Results: The majority of students found PBL a stimulating (59.8%; n = 55), useful (65.2%; n = 60), empowering (70.6%; n = 65) and enlightening (60.8%; n = 56) learning strategy; most students (53.2%; n = 49) expressed certainty about their competence in “accessing relevant literature/evidence” but more (56.3%; n = 52) were less certain about their ability to “integrate information into nursing care”. First year students performed poorly in PBL tutorials but showed a significant improvement in the final year of study in problem-solving (p = .0001), contribution to the group (p = .000), communication (p = .000), critical thinking (p = .001), learning skills (p = .001), personal growth (p = .000) and leadership skills (p = .041). There was no significant difference between PBL and non-PBL students’ overall readiness for self-directed learning (p = .69).Conclusions: The findings suggest that BN students generally have a positive attitude towards PBL, finding it stimulating, useful, empowering and enlightening in a transformative learning environment. However, fewer students feel that they are competent in the majority of the PBL processes. The biggest learning gains for students during PBL tutorials are in problem-solving, contributions to the group, communication, learning skills, critical thinking, personal growth and leadership. PBL and non-PBL students are similar in their self-directed learning readiness regardless of the learning strategy used.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.373 · 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