Unmasking the Structure of Gross Anatomy Laboratory Sessions During Covid‐19
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE Covid‐19 created immediate challenges to anatomy education. The traditional format of gross laboratory sessions experienced a direct impact and few reports documented curricular delivery changes specific to laboratory format. The purpose of this study was to assess the adaptations incorporated in gross anatomy laboratories by anatomists, during May‐August 2020, in response to Covid‐19. MATERIALS/METHODS Data were collected through the IRB‐approved Virtual Anatomy During Covid‐19 survey that consisted of 20 questions, including open‐ended prompts asking participants to describe the structure of a “typical” laboratory session during Covid‐19. Responses were solicited from professional anatomy associations during June 2020. Open‐ended responses describing anatomy laboratory teaching methods used during Covid‐19 were coded. Descriptive codes were applied to the data according to published methods to summarize verbatim responses. Responses were tabulated and converted to frequencies and percentages. Chi square test assessed differences among the responses when applicable. Alpha<5%. RESULTS Descriptions of gross anatomy lab teaching during Covid‐19 were coded into four categories : (1) delivery format, (2) format of laboratory practice, (3) type of anatomy digital resources used, and (4) format of student teaching groups. In the first category, synchronous (46.7%), asynchronous (15.6%), and/or a combination of the two (18.8%) were the most frequent laboratory delivery formats (P<0.001). In the second category, student‐led dissection (17.2%), prosection (10.9%), and/or utilization of commercial and/or in‐house anatomical resources (26.2%) were the most frequent laboratory practices (P<0.001). Within this category, a subcategory was discovered in which physical distancing and personal protective equipment practices were reported (15.6%). Concerning the third category, anatomy digital resources (26.2%) were used for asynchronous laboratory preparation and laboratory sessions. In the final category, student small groups (29.7%) were used in remote sessions where “breakout rooms” permitted students to meet with peers and/or faculty. Large groups (9.4%) were used for faculty to review and present the assigned laboratory topic. CONCLUSION Anatomists largely taught through a remote, synchronous delivery format that relied on cadaveric specimens and digital anatomy resources, as well as small group learning. SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATION: This study shows that anatomists were able to adapt the gross anatomy laboratory sessions to synchronous, virtual mediums; however, the impact of these changes to the learner during this unconventional time remains to be determined.
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 | 0,001 |
| 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 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 ».