FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1976083414> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1976083414 endingPage "162" @default.
• W1976083414 startingPage "162" @default.
• W1976083414 abstract "Comment from GroverIs problem-based learning (PBL) a panacea or a cult where belief prevails over evidence? The basic tenet of PBL is that it is a more efficient way of learning than lecture-based learning (LBL). However, there are no appropriate tools to measure learning. As scientists we do not conduct experiments without well-designed measurement tools. Yet, more schools are adopting PBL.In this issue of TiPS, Michel and colleagues [1xComparison of problem- and lecture-based pharmacology teaching. Michel, M.C et al. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2002; 23: 168–170Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (42)See all References][1] report: ‘Thus, students participating in a pharmacology class involving both PBL and LBL elements reported that they had spent only ∼1 h in preparation for their lecture sessions but 3–4 h in preparation for each PBL session. These findings are consistent with a recent report on a PBL-based epidemiology course in which PBL students worked more steadily during the semester but spent only marginally more time on the course overall.’ However, no data are provided for how much time PBL and LBL students spend at the end of the semester. One can only conclude that preparation for a PBL session took the students 3–4 times longer than for LBL. Another statement in this article is that the tutor time is similar for PBL and LBL. This is hard to reconcile. The number of students and the actual time spent by the tutors preparing problems and administering the course are not provided. Would a scientific journal accept a pharmacology manuscript with such vague information?PBL, defined as small-group self learning, does take substantially longer than large-group LBL for the students and for the faculty. In the three-year MD program at McMaster University, pharmacology is an elective. I have offered pharmacology electives to students in their first, second and third year. An elective consists of 8–12 sessions each lasting 90 min. The first session starts with the discussion of goals and approaches to be taken. The students choose PBL, although they want me to be the resource person because self learning is too demanding on their time. We invariably end up with a hybrid system. The last 15 min of each session are spent on a problem. The next session starts with a 40–50-min lecture followed by a discussion of the previous problem and identification of issues in the next problem. More drug categories are covered in detail by groups about to complete the MD program. Here the students contribute more because they have heard of the drugs previously during the program.I also teach an LBL-based pharmacology course to 50–60 third- or fourth-year non-medical undergraduate students. Answering questions from lectures and assignments used to take 6–10 h per week of my time. PBL was introduced to entice the students to come to an extra 50-min PBL/discussion class where they could also ask questions. Students form small groups in the lecture theatre itself. A teaching assistant and I hop from group to group. In 20 min, issues in a short problem are discussed without trying to solve it. This leaves 25 min for questions about anything. Two lectures follow. In the next PBL/discussion class, 5 min are spent on the previous problem. There are three outcomes: (1) because most questions are answered in the class, only about ∼1 h each week is needed to answer more questions outside the classroom; (2) the number of questions the students ask in lectures has increased from 0–2 per lecture to 4–6 per lecture; and (3) the number of students volunteering to answer questions posed in the class has similarly increased. The course also contains six open-ended problems for group discussion with no marks associated with them. 30–40% of students do not come to these classes. End-of-the-year discussions about the course consistently show that a similar percentage feel this part of the course to be the most enjoyable. Even this limited use of PBL has made the students more pro-active (outcomes 2 and 3 above).In conclusion, PBL can be used to obtain more pro-active graduates. However, PBL as a more efficient way of learning is supported by the faithful without any credible evidence." @default.
• W1976083414 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1976083414 creator A5011078652 @default.
• W1976083414 date "2002-04-01" @default.
• W1976083414 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1976083414 title "Problem-based learning: panacea or cult?" @default.
• W1976083414 cites W2090507272 @default.
• W1976083414 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-6147(00)01936-2" @default.
• W1976083414 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11931986" @default.
• W1976083414 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W1976083414 type Work @default.
• W1976083414 sameAs 1976083414 @default.
• W1976083414 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W1976083414 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1976083414 hasAuthorship W1976083414A5011078652 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConcept C195244886 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConcept C26993612 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConcept C2780493273 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConceptScore W1976083414C142724271 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConceptScore W1976083414C15744967 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConceptScore W1976083414C188147891 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConceptScore W1976083414C195244886 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConceptScore W1976083414C204787440 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConceptScore W1976083414C26993612 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConceptScore W1976083414C2780493273 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConceptScore W1976083414C71924100 @default.
• W1976083414 hasConceptScore W1976083414C95457728 @default.
• W1976083414 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1976083414 hasLocation W19760834141 @default.
• W1976083414 hasLocation W19760834142 @default.
• W1976083414 hasOpenAccess W1976083414 @default.
• W1976083414 hasPrimaryLocation W19760834141 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W1976083414 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W2015328863 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W2015620356 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W2055727764 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W2058725890 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W2075130882 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W2143913554 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W2329823976 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W2614642255 @default.
• W1976083414 hasRelatedWork W3112173019 @default.
• W1976083414 hasVolume "23" @default.
• W1976083414 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1976083414 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1976083414 magId "1976083414" @default.
• W1976083414 workType "article" @default.