PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16205827

Facilitation of students' discussion in problem-based learning tutorials to create mechanisms: the use of five key questions.

Abstract

Without the appropriate facilitation of discussion in a problem-based learning (PBL) course and the use of specific educational tools that enhance cognitive skills, students might deprive themselves of achieving the deep learning experience expected to take place in a PBL course. One of the educational tasks in PBL is the creation of mechanisms for hypotheses made by the students, based on their knowledge of the basic sciences and the psychosocial issues raised in a particular case scenario. The whole task is student-constructed and should enhance their ability to explain the scientific basis of the symptoms and clinical signs of the patient enlisted in the case. Because students usually discuss the case without enough prior related knowledge, they might find it difficult to address different aspects of their mechanisms. These gaps in knowledge may be considered part of their "learning issues". In tutorial 2 (a PBL case is usually discussed in 2 or 3 tutorials at the maximum; each tutorial is 2 hours long), students should be able to build a comprehensive mechanism reflecting their deep understanding of the problem. However, students might not be able to integrate information learnt and their mechanisms might show a number of shortcuts and/or lack integration of information, and the flow of the pathophysiological changes may not be logical. This manuscript describes 5 key open-ended questions in PBL tutorials to facilitate students' discussions as they create their mechanisms.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Samy A Azer. 2005. Facilitation of students' discussion in problem-based learning tutorials to create mechanisms: the use of five key questions.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16205827/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗