The role of spatial ability in visuospatial anatomy comprehension: a cross sectional study of a rwandese student population (535.10)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer‐based three‐dimensional (3D) teaching tools are increasingly used in human anatomy instruction; however, these tools may compromise learning since some learners have problems comprehending them. Previous studies indicate that a person’s spatial ability is predictive of their ability to learn from 3D teaching tools. Most studies investigating this relationship have been performed on a North American population, so this effect is relatively unknown in other parts of the world. Spatial ability can be shaped by daily activities such as travel, sport, and entertainment. Rwandese people may have developed their spatial ability differently than North Americans and, therefore, learn differently from 3D teaching tools. This study investigates the role of spatial ability in comprehending a 3D computer‐based teaching tool in a Rwandese student population. 73 students at the National University of Rwanda have been recruited. Participants performed an anatomy knowledge test, 3 standardized spatial tests, and a pre and post spatial anatomy task with a 3D teaching tool as an intervention. The results of this study may help to design computerized, 3D teaching tools that are tailored to educational facilities in Rwanda. When developing 3D teaching tools it is important to take learner characteristics into account to create tools that are sensitive to the population that is learning from them.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".