The purpose of this chapter is “to serve those contexts where the decision to adopt PBL... has been made and where now as part of the planning process a list of challenges options or issues that require informed choice or resolution becomes apparent”. These include: the identification of effective approaches for training faculty as PBL tutors identification of the roles and behaviors of effective tutors whether to use “expert” or “non-expert” tutors how to evaluate students for the educational objectives uniquely associated with PBL and whether PBL can be usefully applied in the clinical curriculum. The chapter offers critical reviews and summaries of the pertinent recent literature relating to these five topics. The authors conclude that notwithstanding the existence of a considerable literature in the contexts of the five topics addressed it presents as a collection of independent case studies rather than as coherent and well articulated. Consequently, in the opinion of the authors, the generalizability of the results presented is limited. “Their utility lies in the experiences they reflect, the precedents they define, nd the chance that another institution may present enough similarity in program and context to allow some valid application of findings or experience.”

Problem-Based Learning

Purpose To measure the inter-rater eliability of the Sequenced Performance Inventory and Reflective Assessment of Learning (SPIRAL), a twenty-three item scoring rubric designed to assess first and second-year students' competencies such as “acquisition of knowledge,” “peer teaching and communication skills,” and “professional behavior” in a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Method In 2001, the authors constructed a 69-item multiple-choice questionnaire consisting of descriptions of “prototypical” (representing real students) PBL student performances. For each of the 23 SPIRAL items, the authors chose competency descriptions of an “emerging,” a “developing,” and an “advanced” student (69 prototypical students). These descriptions were obtained from narrative comments by PBL facilitators of real students in their classes in 2000–2001. Seventeen experienced facilitators (PBL tutors) were subsequently asked to rank the 69 prototypical students based on SPIRAL anchor points in the three competency levels. Kendall's coefficient of concordance was used to test inter-rater reliability. Modes were also determined to illustrate the extent to which the ratings of the 17 facilitators aligned with the ratings anticipated by the authors. Results Overall, inter-rater scoring for all items combined was considered to be reliable (Kendall's coefficient of concordance W = .75). Inter-rater scoring was also determined for each of the 23 SPIRAL items, with Ws ranging from .97 to .53. Facilitators rated students according to 55 of the 69 SPIRAL descriptors as the researchers anticipated. Conclusions The scoring rubric is reliable. Further criterion-related validation study is warranted.

Measuring inter-rater reliability of the sequenced performance inventory and reflective assessment of learning (SPIRAL).

As it is currently configured, completion of child neurology residency requires performance of 12 months of training in adult neurology. Exploration of whether or not this duration of training in adult neurology is appropriate for what child neurology is today must take into account the initial reasons for this requirement and the goals of adult neurology training during child neurology residency.

Adult neurology training during child neurology residency

/pdf/a-aprendizagem-baseado-em-problemas-e-os-recursos-5e7ayfkyz1.pdf

A aprendizagem baseado em problemas e os recursos adaptativos de estudantes do curso medico

Educational Research Association

PURPOSE: To determine whether it is possible for faculty to arrive at consistent, non-idiosyncratic grades in a problem-based learning (PBL) course. METHOD: Integrated Case Studies and Medical Decision Making (ICS) is the final course of the second year at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In ICS, 16 groups of nine students work in a PBL format over seven weeks. Each group is led by three faculty facilitators who, at the end of the course, independently give each student ratings for overall performance in the course and for each of seven performance categories. In 1993-94 and 1994-95, concordance in grades among the facilitators was determined by computing the intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC (3,1)] for the overall scores, the seven performance category scores, and all eight scores in aggregate. An ICC (3,1) of > or = .1 was considered indicative of statistically significant interrater concordance. An ICC (3,1) of > or = .7 was considered indicative of concordance of practical significance. RESULTS: Because the facilitators occasionally did not rate every student in every performance category, complete information was not available for all 32 groups. Statistically significant concordance was achieved in the aggregate scores in 100% of 23 groups, and in the overall scores in 90% of 18 groups. In six of the seven performance categories, concordance was achieved in at least 75% of the groups (n = 16-20). Practically significant concordance was achieved in the aggregate scores in 83% of 23 groups. CONCLUSION: The study results show that, given specific criteria by which to judge students' performances, it is possible to arrive at consistent, non-idiosyncratic grades for students in PBL courses.

Interrater Concordance for Faculty Grading of Student Performances in a Problem-Based Learning Course.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

J E Janosky

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Interrater Concordance for Faculty Grading of Student Performances in a Problem-Based Learning Course.