Undergraduate Student’s Preferred Learning Modality for Flipped Anatomy Laboratory Sessions
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction The flipped classroom approach (FCA) is a growing instructional method in higher education. In the flipped classroom, students’ first exposure to content is prior to class, commonly in the form of two learning modalities (LMs): a textbook reading, or a video recording. Class time then focuses on the application of knowledge. This approach has been implemented in many lecture‐based courses; however, it has yet to be fully evaluated in the anatomical laboratory (lab). It remains unclear whether students prefer traditional or flipped instruction for anatomy lab sessions and, with a FCA, which LM provides anatomical content exposure that most aligns with student preferences. Thus, the aims of this cross‐over study were: (i) to determine students’ preferred instruction type for anatomy lab sessions, (ii) to determine students’ rank‐order of learning modalities for anatomical content exposure from most to least preferred, and (iii) to establish the reasons for learning modality preferences. Methods Undergraduate students (n=59) were recruited from a systemic human anatomy course at the University of Western Ontario and were placed in one of four study groups. The groups were exposed to three flipped and one traditional lab sessions, with each session focused on a different musculoskeletal region. The flipped lab sessions used one of the following LMs for content exposure before the in‐lab component of the session: a textbook reading, a video recording, or a three‐dimensional (3D) anatomy application (app). The traditional lab sessions did not have content exposure before the in‐lab component but consisted of a lab talk during the in‐lab session using cadaveric specimens. An open‐ended questionnaire determined student’s preferred instruction type and rank‐order preference for the LMs. Open‐ended questions were coded and analyzed for themes to establish the reasons for the student’s rank‐order of the LMs. Results (i) The majority of students (57.6%) preferred a LM associated with flipped instruction compared to that associated with the traditional instruction. (ii) The average ranking of the LMs from most to least preferred were lab talk, 3D anatomy app, video recording, and textbook reading, with the textbook reading most often ranked as the least preferred LM (p < 0.05). (iii) Based on responses to the open‐ended questions, many students preferred LMs that allowed for representational visualization of the anatomical structures. Majority of students also preferred LMs, which allowed them to control their pace of learning. Inadequate visualization of the structures and lack of engagement were the main reasons the textbook reading was predominately ranked as the least preferred LM. Conclusion The FCA relies heavily on student’s gaining a baseline of knowledge before class time; therefore, it is important to determine the LMs that enhance engagement, and most align with student learning preferences to promote completion of content exposure before class. This study revealed that anatomy students prefer LMs that promote visualization of the structures and allow for control of the pace of learning. Thus, when designing LMs to expose undergraduate students to the anatomical content, consideration should be given to the incorporation of the identified preferences to maximize student engagement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle