How Specific Instructional Design Elements Influence the Experience of Case-Based Collaborative Learning in a Mexican Medical School: A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Case-based collaborative learning (CBCL) is an instructional method designed to promote active learning (AL). In CBCL, students learn the basics independently and apply their knowledge to case scenarios collaboratively. While theoretically the cognitive principles underlying AL in CBCL should be generalizable, implementation is shaped by local and cultural contexts. This study explored the feasibility of implementing CBCL at the University of Guadalajara, Mexico, where lectures dominate higher education and passive learning is the norm. Methods: This study used a quasi-experimental design and an explanatory mixed-method approach. Ninety-nine fourth-year medical students, enrolled in a virtual evidence-based medicine (EBM) course, were assigned into a group taught via CBCL or a comparison group taught using lectures. Both groups covered identical EBM content: framing clinical questions, database searching, critical appraisal of randomized trials and diagnostic studies, evaluating systematic reviews, and applying evidence to patient care. Students' knowledge (cognitive skills) and attitudes (affective dimensions) were assessed using course exams, survey data, and focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to explore the intervention's impact and feasibility. Results: = .72). Themes from self-determination theory were identified as underlying concepts for how specific instructional design (ID) elements influenced student perception of the CBCL intervention. Qualitative results showed how ID elements promoting autonomy (eg, clear objectives, readiness assessments), competence (eg, solving clinically relevant problems), and relatedness (eg, collaborative group work) were associated with intrinsic motivation. Conclusion: CBCL proved feasible and valued by students accustomed to lecture-based approaches. Our findings led to a conceptual model linking specific ID elements in CBCL with motivational domains. This model can guide educators seeking to adapt CBCL or similar AL approaches to their local context and inform future research.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".