Evaluating In‐person and Remote Delivery of Human Anatomy Laboratory Education Among Medicine and Dentistry Students
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As remote teaching has become the forefront of education during the COVID‐19 pandemic, anatomy curricula have been forced to adapt to provide quality education for core competencies. In particular, in‐person laboratory components have been largely reduced or removed from anatomy teaching to comply with social distancing guidelines. While this has compromised typical learning environments, it offers a unique opportunity to implement remote teaching practices in anatomy and assess their impact on students’ learning. The Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at McGill University has initiated a hybrid teaching strategy for the anatomy laboratory curriculum that combines limited hands‐on cadaveric dissection with remote laboratory‐adjacent activities using a 3‐D software application (Complete Anatomy 2021). During the Fall 2020 semester, first‐year medicine and dentistry students had the opportunity to experience both teaching formats while learning respiratory and cardiovascular anatomy. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of this hybrid curriculum delivery format by comparing in‐person versus digital teaching approaches implemented within the same cohort on the following outcomes: (i) student and instructor experiences, (ii) students’ approach to learning (SAL) and performance, and (iii) faculty time, resources, and cost considerations. Given that hands‐on cadaver‐based learning is considered the gold standard in anatomy education, we hypothesized that the in‐person teaching format would be associated with higher deep and lower surface learning scores, higher grades, and higher resource requirements. The qualitative feedback revealed greater student preference for in‐person dissection learning. Comparisons of SAL between in‐person and remote delivery formats revealed no significant differences in students’ deep or surface approach scores between in‐person and remote delivery formats during the respiratory (deep: p = 0.63; surface: p = 0.84) or cardiovascular (deep: p = 0.18; surface: p = 0.22) anatomy laboratory sessions. Further, no significant differences were noted in mean grades on the laboratory exam when correlated with the respective in‐person vs. remote learning format for both respiratory (p = 0.65) and cardiovascular (p = 0.18) blocks. Together, these findings suggest that irrespective of the teaching method utilized, students adopted similar approaches to learning anatomy and performed equally well in summative assessments. Pending a thematic analysis of instructors’ experiences, resource use, and cost considerations, findings from this study will help guide educational policy revisions aimed at maintaining student‐centered learning during current and future disruptions to in‐person teaching.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».