Does a Curriculum‐Targeted, Dissection‐Based Laboratory Workbook Influence Student Learning Outcomes in Undergraduate Human Anatomy?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Human anatomy is an information‐dense field that often has institutional‐ and curricular‐imposed restraints. The resulting time and resource limitations cultivate a need to develop and implement tools that promote efficiency through self‐directed student learning opportunities. Furthermore, such tools require testing to ensure that they positively contribute to meaningful student learning. We recently created an educational tool to promote student efficiency in the cadaver‐based laboratory at the University of Guelph. The Human Anatomy Laboratory Companion (HALC) is a paper‐based, take‐home workbook for undergraduate students enrolled in our dissection‐ based, third‐year human anatomy course. The overall goal of the HALC was to provide students with a curriculum‐targeted, cadaver‐based resource for pre‐laboratory preparation and post‐laboratory review. This pilot study examined students' reported use of the HALC, and determined if usage influenced their course experience, contextual learning approaches, or course performance outcomes. Course experience was measured using the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), while the students' preferred and contextual approaches to learning were measured using the Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (RSPQ‐2F). Student grades on written and laboratory tests were examined as performance outcomes. Students who used the HALC ‘Very Frequently’ (370.83 ± 21.476) reported statistically significantly higher scores on the Learning Resources subscale of the CEQ than students who only used it ‘Occasionally’ (260.53 ± 23.865, p = 0.03). Furthermore, students who ‘Very Frequently’ (47.92 ± 32.061) used the HALC reported statistically significantly higher scores on the Appropriate Workload subscale of the CEQ than students who ‘Never” used it (−126.92 ± 34.722, p = 0.003). Multiple linear regression (MLR) analyses found no significant correlation between HALC usage frequency and contextual learning approaches when student demographic data, preferred learning approaches, GPA, and CEQ subscale scores were included as covariates ( p > 0.05). Further MLR analysis revealed that HALC usage frequency was a statistically significant predictor of laboratory test performance when controlling for GPA, and contextual learning approaches ( β = 1.585 ± 0.678, p = 0.021). Together these data suggest that students who reported more frequent use of the HALC had: higher satisfaction with the courses learning resources, a stronger ability to cope with the amount of work that was expected of them throughout the course and, better preparation for laboratory‐based examinations. While the HALC was not found to influence the students' approach to learning in human anatomy, this study demonstrates the potential for curriculum‐targeted, dissection‐based resources that use real cadaveric images to improve laboratory‐based performance outcomes and student satisfaction in dissection‐based undergraduate human anatomy courses. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 ».