Effectiveness of Field Simulation Approach for Problem-Based Learning That Incorporates the One Health Concept
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One Health problem-based learning (PBL) is known as an effective method in teaching zoonotic diseases. However, the classic classroom setting limits real-life exposure for students. Simulation-based learning may improve the learning experience without exposing the students to unnecessary risks. Hence, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of field simulation PBL compared to a classic classroom setting using a module developed based on the One Health concept by examining the students’ reactions to the learning and by assessing the students’ performance. A quasi-experimental design was adopted in this study. Veterinary and medical undergraduate students participated in both types of PBL settings, and their knowledge and satisfaction were evaluated through a pre- and post-test as well as a feedback survey. The mean satisfaction score of students undergoing field simulation was significantly higher than the mean satisfaction score of students undergoing classic PBL ( p > .05). The respondents from both programs found the field simulation, in comparison to classic PBL, was more effective, and they were more satisfied with the overall learning experience, workloads, and facilitation. The attainment of the cognitive domain was comparable between both PBL groups, which was possibly due to the type of assessment used. In conclusion, field simulation enhanced the students’ positive learning experiences as they exhibited better attitudes toward learning. Future studies on the impact of the simulation on long-term knowledge retention and psychomotor skills are thus warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it