Student Approach to Learning and Visuospatial Ability as Independent Predictors of Academic Performance in Human Anatomy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Several indices have been investigated for their accuracy as predictive metrics of students’ performance in anatomy courses. Both student approaches to learning (SAL) and visuospatial ability (VA) have been shown to be predictive of learning outcome achievement. However, far less anatomy‐specific evidence exists for SAL than for VA, and their respective predictive strength has yet to be examined. The present study investigated the relationship between SAL and VA as predictive metrics for student academic performance, as measured by laboratory‐based assessments. In addition, the predictive strength of each metric was evaluated to determine which of the two was most effective at quantitatively assessing anatomy learning environments. It was hypothesized that the variation in grades could be partially explained by both SAL and VA, and that the latter would have a stronger relationship to performance. Undergraduate students enrolled in an anatomy course at McGill University were surveyed for this study (total n = 138; 76.8% female; average years of age = 19.46, SD = ±1.04). Students were from kinesiology (58.0%), physical therapy (19.6%), occupational therapy (19.6 %), and other (2.9%) programs. In addition to collecting demographic data, the survey included the Revised 2‐factor Study Process Questionnaire to collect SAL on deep and surface scales, and the Mental Rotations Test to quantify VA. A multiple linear regression model was used to assess deep and surface approach to learning scores and VA as covariates that influence grades, while controlling for age, sex, and program of study [ F (6,131) = 7.741, P < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.228]. Data analyses revealed that both VA ( β = 0.802, SEM = 0.284; P = 0.006) and deep approach scores ( β = 0.776, SEM = 0.246; P = 0.002) had significant positive correlations with grades; however, surface approach scores ( β = ‐0.399, SEM = 0.280; P = 0.157) were not significantly correlated at P ≤ 0.05. Based on the coefficients, a one‐point increase on the deep approach scale was slightly more beneficial than the same point‐increase on the Mental Rotations Test; however, the advantage was minimal (+0.026%). These findings assert that SAL and VA can independently predict performance on laboratory‐based assessments in human anatomy – with VA representing a personal presage factor, and SAL representing a process factor. A deeper understanding of these metrics allows for better quantitative assessment of success when implementing curricular changes intended to improve anatomy learning environments. Therefore, both metrics should be used for a more comprehensive approach to evaluating educational interventions in anatomy.
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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».