Evaluation of problem-based learning models in the integrated midwifery curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".