Perceptions of a mobile technology on learning strategies in the anatomy laboratory
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
Mobile technologies offer new opportunities to improve dissection learning. This study examined the effect of using an iPad-based multimedia dissection manual during anatomy laboratory instruction on learner's perception of anatomy dissection activities and use of time. Three experimental dissection tables used iPads and three tables served as a control for two identical sessions. Trained, non-medical school anatomy faculty observers recorded use of resources at two-minute intervals for 20 observations per table. Students completed pre- and post-perception questionnaires. We used descriptive and inferential analyses. Twenty-one control and 22 experimental students participated. Compared with controls, experimental students reported significantly (P < 0.05) less reliance on paper and instructor resources, greater ability to achieve anatomy laboratory objectives, and clarity of the role of dissection in learning anatomy. Experimental students indicated that the iPad helped them in dissection. We observed experimental students more on task (93% vs. 83% of the time) and less likely to be seeking an instructor (2% vs. 32%). The groups received similar attention from instructors (33% vs. 37%). Fifty-nine percent of the time at least one student was looking at the iPad. Groups clustered around the iPad a third of their time. We conclude that the iPad-manual aided learner engagement, achieved instructional objectives, and enhanced the effectiveness and efficiency of dissection education.
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 | 0.000 | 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