MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993273415

Computer-supported Collaborative Problem-based Learning:

2007· article· en· W2993273415 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Som Naidu, Mary Oliver

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of e-learning & distance education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProblem-based learningPresentation (obstetrics)Set (abstract data type)Process (computing)Computer scienceMathematics educationPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is hypothesized that problem-based learning has many advantages for learning and teaching, especially in practice-oriented professions. Although there is consensus on the generalized view of the process, there is not much in the form of specific guidelines on how problem-based learning (PBL) can be put to maximum use in group-based learning and teaching environments. Furthermore, little is known about what actually happens in the various phases of the process (such as problem analysis) and how these can be activated and systematically enhanced. The project reported in this paper set out to fill this particular void. Nurses encounter problem situations on a regular basis as part of their work, which makes it imperative that graduating nurses are conversant with the problem-solving process as they make their transition from the classroom into the workforce. A sure and quick way to ensure this transition is to engage students in problem-based learning. In the course selected for this project, students were presented with three authentic problem situations representative of the content of the course. Students were required to approach the study of the problem with a defined architecture, which required focused reflections and the presentation of a critical reflection record at the end of a study period. All of these learning activities took place in a computer-mediated communications environment that enabled sharing of opinions and views on each of the problems among the student group. A study of the critical reflections of students on the problem situations revealed evidence of a systematic approach to problem analysis and problem solving. On suppose que l'apprentissage par problèmes recèle de nombreux bénéfices tant pour l'apprentissage que pour l'enseignement, notamment dans le cas de professions axées sur la pratique. Bien qu'à priori il y ait consensus quant aux grandes lignes du processus, il n'existe néanmoins que très peu d'indications spécifiques relatives à la façon par laquelle l'apprentissage par problèmes peut maximiser l'efficience d'environnements centrés sur l'apprentissage collectif et l'enseignement. Par ailleurs, le niveau de connaissance de ce qui se passe dans chacune des diverses étapes du processus (tel l'analyse du problème) de même que comment celles-ci peuvent être activées et systématiquement améliorées, demeure encore aléatoire. Le projet présenté dans cet article avait pour but de combler cette lacune. Les infirmiers et infirmières rencontrent régulièrement des situations de problèmes dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions, d'où l'importance de voir à ce que la formation dispensée aux nouveaux-nouvelles diplômé-es leur permette d'être adéquatement familiers-familières avec le processus de résolution de problèmes lorsqu'ils-elles font leur entrée sur le marché du travail. Une façon rapide et certaine de s'assurer de cette transition est d'impliquer les étudiant-es dans un apprentissage fondé sur la résolution de problèmes. Dans le cours choisi pour ce projet, les étudiant-es étaient confronté-es à trois situations authentiques où les problèmes présentés étaient représentatifs du contenu du cours. Les étudiant-es devaient aborder l'étude du problème selon une démarche qui nécessitait des raisonnements orientés ainsi que la soumission, au terme de la période d'étude, d'un dossier des raisonnements les plus déterminants. L'ensemble de ces activités d'apprentissage s'est déroulé dans un environnement de communication assistée par ordinateur, ce qui a permis aux étudiant-es de partager leurs opinions et perspectives sur chacun des trois problèmes posés. L'étude des raisonnements critiques soumis par les étudiant-es en rapport avec les situations de problèmes révèle la présence d'une approche systématique face à l'analyse et à la résolution de problèmes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.337
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of e-learning & distance educationSame topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207