The Effect of Graphic Organizers on Learning Outcomes, Study Efficiency, and Student Satisfaction in an Elective Veterinary Cardiology Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graphic organizers (GOs) are visual and spatial displays, such as tables or charts, which facilitate learning by making conceptual relationships between content more apparent. We hypothesized that study aids in the form of GOs would lead to improved learning outcomes, study efficiency, and student satisfaction compared to traditional outline (OUT) format. A mixed-methods prospective randomized crossover trial was undertaken with veterinary students ( n = 31) in an elective cardiology course. All students received identical content presented via weekly in-class lectures. Following 8 pre-designated lectures, students were given instructor-prepared study aids in either GO or OUT format. Students completed quizzes of content knowledge for each lesson and indicated amount of time spent studying. Crossover occurred such that groups of students alternated between receiving GO and OUT. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in the form of in-depth pre- and post-course surveys. Quiz scores did not differ ( p = .42) based on type of study aid provided (GO vs. OUT). Students spent an average of 17% less time studying per lesson when using GO compared to OUT ( p = .05). Student satisfaction with both study aid formats was high, but students preferred GO over OUT in terms of study efficiency ( p = .002), visual appeal ( p < .001), ease of use ( p < .004), and likelihood of referencing in the future ( p < .001). In an elective veterinary cardiology course, use of GO compared to OUT format study aids resulted in higher study efficiency and student satisfaction with equivalent short-term learning outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".