Student perceptions and effectiveness of an innovative learning tool: Anatomy Glove Learning System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A trend in anatomical education is the development of alternative pedagogical approaches to replace or complement experiences in a cadaver laboratory; however, empirical evidence on their effectiveness is often not reported. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Anatomy Glove Learning System (AGLS), which enables students to learn the relationship between hand structure and function by drawing the structures onto a worn glove with imprinted bones. Massage therapy students (n = 73) were allocated into two groups and drew muscles onto either: (1) the glove using AGLS instructional videos (3D group); or (2) paper with palmar/dorsal views of hand bones during an instructor-guided activity (2D group). A self-confidence measure and knowledge test were completed before, immediately after, and one-week following the learning conditions. Self-confidence of hand anatomy in the 3D group gradually increased (3.2/10, 4.7/10, and 4.8/10), whereas self-confidence in the 2D group began to decline one-week later (3.2/10, 4.4/10, and 3.9/10). Knowledge of hand anatomy improved in both groups immediately after learning, (P < 0.001). Students' perceptions of AGLS were also assessed using a 10-pt Likert scale evaluation questionnaire (10 = high). Students perceived the AGLS videos (mean = 8.3 ± 2.0) and glove (mean = 8.1 ± 1.8) to be helpful in improving their understanding of hand anatomy and the majority of students preferred AGLS as a learning tool (mean = 8.6 ± 2.2). This study provides evidence demonstrating that AGLS and the traditional 2D learning approach are equally effective in promoting students' self-confidence and knowledge of hand anatomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it