MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952606475 · doi:10.22329/celt.v12i0.5751

Reflections on Experiential Learning in an Undergraduate Global Health Course

2019· article· en· W2952606475 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Obidimma Ezezika

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningPsychologyPedagogyHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiential learning has the potential to enhance students’ success and prepare them for the job market, including through class experiences that mirror experiences in the workforce. In this article, I lay out the process of incorporating experiential learning in a global health course. I have derived three key lessons from the design and implementation of this course: focus on one overarching goal, align learning activities with real world expectations, and help students understand connections between their projects and course content. These lessons provide insights to integrate experiential learning activities in the classroom. L’apprentissage expérientiel a le potentiel d’améliorer la réussite des étudiants et de les préparer pour le marché du travail, notamment en créant en classe des expériences qui ressemblent aux expériences en milieu de travail. Dans cet article, je présente le processus d’incorporation de l’apprentissage expérientiel dans un cours sur la santé mondiale. Je tire trois leçons de la conception et de la mise en œuvre de ce cours : il faut 1) se concentrer sur un objectif primordial, 2) harmoniser les activités d’apprentissage et les attentes du monde réel et 3) aider les étudiants à comprendre les rapports entre leurs projets et le contenu du cours. Ces leçons permettent de mieux comprendre comment incorporer des activités d’apprentissage expérientiel en classe.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207