MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392613417 · doi:10.17509/jik.v21i1.63498

Evaluation of problem-based learning models in the integrated midwifery curriculum

2024· article· en· W4392613417 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInovasi Kurikulum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumComputer scienceMathematics educationObstetricsSociologyPsychologyMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation of the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) model in the integrated curriculum aims to encourage midwifery students' learning abilities, evaluate the effectiveness of learning, and test students' abilities in midwifery knowledge. This article aims to evaluate the PBL model's evaluation in the integrated midwifery curriculum. The research method uses descriptive cross-sectional. Data was collected by administering content-validated questionnaires to 113 D4 Midwifery Study Program students, and then the univariate data was analyzed descriptively. The research results showed that the majority of students rated the implementation of the tutorial method and practice with lab activities, evaluation of theoretical learning with Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) and Structure Oral Case Assessment (SOCA), and practice evaluation using the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) method. Apart from that, the majority of students agree that evaluation of field practice learning (clinic/community) can improve clinical abilities and advocacy skills across sectors (56.6%), and students are satisfied with lecturers as tutors during the learning process. This research concludes that the integrated curriculum uses tutorial learning strategies with MCQ and SOCA evaluations, thereby improving clinical and cross-sector advocacy skills based on student perceptions. AbstrakEvaluasi model Problem Based Learning (PBL) pada kurikulum terintegrasi bertujuan mendorong kemampuan belajar mahasiswa kebidanan, mengevaluasi keefektifan pembelajaran dan menguji kemampuan mahasiswa dalam pengetahuan kebidanan. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui evaluasi model PBL pada kurikulum kebidanan terintegrasi. Metode penelitian menggunakan deskriptif dengan cross sectional. Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan memberikan kuesioner yang telah tervalidasi content kepada 113 mahasiswa Program Studi D4 Kebidanan, kemudian data univariat dianalisis secara deskriptif. Hasil penelitian didapatkan sebagian besar mahasiswa menilai baik terhadap pelaksanaan metode tutorial dan praktik dengan lab activity, evaluasi pembelajaran teori dengan Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) dan Structure Oral Case Assesment (SOCA), dan evaluasi praktik dengan metode Direct Observation of Prosedural Skills (DOPS). Selain itu, sebagian besar mahasiswa setuju terhadap evaluasi pembelajaran praktik lapangan (klinik/komunitas) dapat meningkatkan kemampuan klinis dan keterampilan advokasi pada lintas sektor, serta mahasiswa puas terhadap dosen sebagai tutor saat proses pembelajaran. Simpulan pada penelitian ini bahwa kurikulum terintegrasi menggunakan strategi pembelajaran tutorial dengan evaluasi MCQ dan SOCA sehingga meningkatkan keterampilan advokasi klinis dan lintas sektor berdasarkan persepsi mahasiswa.Kata Kunci: Evaluasi; kurikulum terintegrasi; problem-based learning

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.272 · 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