MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088298916 · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000507

Are Simulation Learning Objectives Educationally Sound? A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study

2020· article· en· W3088298916 on OpenAlexaff
Madeleine Hui, Muqtasid Mansoor, Matthew Sibbald

Bibliographic record

VenueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationCategorizationComputer scienceComprehensionBloom's taxonomyTaxonomy (biology)Competence (human resources)PsychologyMedical educationArtificial intelligenceMedicineCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Accreditation standards of simulation stress the importance of educationally sound learning objectives. We aimed to assess whether learning objectives adhered to theoretical frameworks outlined by accreditation standards, lending themselves to maximal learning outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted at the Centre for Simulation-Based Learning at McMaster University. Raters coded 848 faculty-designed learning objectives from 722 sessions based on Bloom's Taxonomy, SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) criteria, and the presence of inappropriate verbs. Learning objective categorization was compared with student evaluations. RESULTS: Using Bloom's Taxonomy, learning objectives were mostly focused on application 53%, followed by smaller percentages focused on knowledge 21.4% and comprehension 12.2%. Few learning objectives focused on higher levels of analysis 7.2%, synthesis 2.3%, and evaluation 3.7%. By SMART criteria, learning objectives were 49.6% specific, 60.8% measurable, 88.8% attainable, 85.0% realistic, and 9.1% timely. Approximately 1 in 5 objectives used inappropriate verbs. No correlations were observed between categorization by Bloom's Taxonomy or inappropriate verbs to student ratings. However, those containing attainable and timely goals were associated with lower levels of perceived achievement by students. CONCLUSIONS: There was a disconnect between simulation accreditation standards and current practices at McMaster University's simulation center. Most objectives were classified at lower stages of Bloom's Taxonomy. The majority followed SMART guidelines, with the exception of specificity and mention of time frames. A minority of learning objectives contained inappropriate verbs. Given the costs associated with simulation-based education, educators should focus simulation learning objectives on higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy and include references to time frames.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in HealthcareSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207