Using Learning Curves to Identify and Explain Growth Patterns of Learners in Bronchoscopy Simulation: A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Learning curves can illustrate how trainees acquire skills and the path to competence. This study examined the growth trajectories of novice trainees while practicing on a bronchoscopy virtual reality (VR) simulator compared with those of experts. METHOD: This was a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design. Twenty pediatric subspecialty trainees and 7 faculty practiced with the VR simulator (October 2017 to March 2018) at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. The authors examined the relationship between number of repetitions and VR outcomes and patterns of growth using a growth mixture modeling. Using an instrumental case study design, field notes and semistructured interviews with trainees and simulation instructor were examined to explain the patterns of growth. The authors used a constant comparative approach to identify themes iteratively. Team analysis continued until a stable thematic structure was developed and applied to the entire data. RESULTS: The growth mixture model identified 2 patterns of growth. A slower growth included learners that had inherent difficulty with the skill, did not integrate the knowledge of anatomy in simulation practice, and used the simulator for simple repetitive practice with no strategy for improvement in between trials. The faster growth included learners who used an adaptive expertise approach: integrating knowledge of anatomy, finding flexible solutions, and creating a deeper conceptual understanding. CONCLUSIONS: The authors provide validity evidence for use of growth models in education and explain patterns of growth such as a "slow growth" with a mechanistic repetitive practice and a "fast growth" with adaptive expertise.
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 | 0.031 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".