Research Skills in Thesis Versus Course‐Based Master's Programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Master’s programs in the anatomical sciences can be either thesis or course‐based, both providing students with opportunities for research skill development through different degree requirements. However, it is often assumed that skills develop naturally during research experiences, such that students may not be aware of the specific skills that they are developing or the experiences that lead to skill development. Explicit research skill development has many benefits in master’s programs, such as a deeper understanding of learning tasks, and is also important for various careers commonly pursued by anatomy graduates. Using online surveys, this study compared past research skill experiences and future career goals of students in a course‐based Master of Science (MSc) in Clinical Anatomy program and six MSc thesis programs. While this research does not lend itself to a hypothesis, it was predicted that the results would highlight areas for curricular updates based on gaps between students’ current research skill competencies and future goals. The study was based on seven research skills identified by an environmental scan and literature review: communication, problem solving, decision‐making, data collection, data analysis, critical appraisal, and information synthesis. Survey respondents from the MSc thesis (n = 11) and MSc Clinical Anatomy (n = 9) programs were asked about their undergraduate research experiences. Seven MSc thesis students (63.6%) completed an undergraduate honours thesis compared to one MSc Clinical Anatomy student (11.1%), a statistically significant difference in proportions of 0.525 ( p = .028). The frequency of opportunities for the development of communication and data collection skills was significantly higher for students who completed an undergraduate honours thesis (mean ranks = 9.50, 9.67) than for those who graduated from a non‐thesis undergraduate program (mean ranks = 4.86, 4.71), U = 6, 5, z = ‐2.384, ‐2.401, p = .035, .022. As well, the perceived data collection competencies of students who completed an undergraduate honours thesis (mean rank = 9.75) were significantly higher than of students who took part in non‐thesis undergraduate research (mean rank = 4.64), U = 4.5, z = ‐2.491, p = .014. Survey respondents were also asked to identify their career aspirations. The two multinomial probability distributions were equal in the population p = .332, showing no statistically significant differences in proportions between the career goals of MSc thesis and MSc Clinical Anatomy students. That said, the data suggests that MSc thesis students aspired for a career in academia (36.4% versus 25.0%) or industry (27.3% versus 0.0%) more than MSc Clinical Anatomy students, whereas more MSc Clinical Anatomy students aimed for a career in medicine (37.5% versus 27.3%) than MSc thesis students. Taken together, these results reveal the similarities and differences between thesis and course‐based master’s students’ research skill backgrounds and career aspirations, illustrating students’ competencies upon entering their programs and the skills important for their career goals. An understanding of these two factors highlights students’ research skill needs to inform curricular updates and program development in anatomy education, ensuring that students have opportunities to develop the skills needed to succeed in their current and future educational and career pathways.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,048 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,003 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».