Implementation of PBL: piecemeal or all the way?
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
The transformation from traditional teaching to student-centred learning is a widespread global phenomenon. Since the introduction of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) as the main didactic method at the new medical school of McMaster University in Canada about 40 years ago, many institutes in higher education have followed. At first PBL was mostly applied in new schools, starting fresh with the development of a completely new curriculum, like the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands and the University of Aalborg in Demark. In the mean time PBL has become quite popular as a method to involve students and to promote active learning in Engineering Education. Different institutions apply the PBL didactic principles in many different ways. What is more, implementation of PBL in an existing institute with standing traditions constitutes an altogether different challenge than building a new curriculum from scratch. In particular in institutes with a strong academic tradition the question often arises whether it is necessary to go all the way at once. The paper discusses advantages and disadvantages of a range of implementation strategies, based on an example from practice at TU Delft.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 it