A Newly Modified Research Design for the Assessment of an In‐class, Student Driven Teaching Activity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The anatomy classroom has become an active space for the scholarship of teaching and learning. Pedagogical researchers who take the initiative to introduce and assess novel instructional modalities hope to improve anatomical instruction. Embedded within the success of such teaching and learning endeavors is an essential reliance on evidence‐based assessments with strong and transparent research designs. This abstract aims to create transparency in the upcoming educational assessment of Movement Guided Learning© (MGL), an in‐class studentdriven activity workbook designed to guide students through various applications of musculoskeletal anatomy including physical movements/stretches, surface palpations/visualizations, and extensions of knowledge through scenarios and case studies. Previous pilot assessments of MGL (one at the community college level (n=29) and one at the undergraduate university level (n=20)) have indicated that MGL promotes student learning of human musculoskeletal anatomy (knowledge improvement of 17.7%, p <0.005), with high levels of student satisfaction (96% of students recommend it). The proposed research project will assess the extended version of the MGL workbook in an undergraduate anatomy classroom. Modifications to the original research design (which was a prospective, observer‐blind, randomized crossover, superiority comparison of the MGL workbook against a traditional Q&A tutorial session) have occurred for improved facilitation of the research as well as segmented assessments of content usefulness. The experimental cohort remains as undergraduate students in the combined fields of Kinesiology and Athletic Therapy. The new research design will use a mini‐MGL workbook that contains a randomly selected subset of activities and applications pertaining to a limited number of musculoskeletal structures. With a blinded course instructor and an unchanged course curriculum, information regarding student performance on examinations from both the 2015 (non‐MGL) and 2016 (MGL) cohorts will be extracted for planned comparisons. The primary research goal is to quantify the effectiveness of MGL as a pedagogical modality for teaching musculoskeletal anatomy by: (1) extracting performance data for examination questions pertaining to mini‐MGL content and comparing performance between the 2015 and the 2016 cohorts and (2) separating individual performance data for the questions that align with mini‐MGL and the questions that do not, and comparing intra‐individual performance outcomes. It is hypothesized that student performance in the 2016 cohort will be improved for examination questions that align with the mini‐MGL workbook only, while performance for misaligned questions will be the same. It is further hypothesized that this improvement in performance will be greater among students who display a preference towards kinesthetic learning opportunities. This descriptive poster presents the newly modified and updated proposed research methods for assessing the outcomes of fully integrating the mini‐MGL workbook into the university undergraduate classroom. This validation is the final step in the multi‐year, multi‐site, series of research resulting in the evidence‐based assessment of the Movement Guided Learning© workbook.
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 | 0,019 | 0,038 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 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 ».