A Comparison of Student Approach to Learning Between Dissection‐ and Prosection‐based Undergraduate Human Anatomy Courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human anatomy is among the oldest and most thoroughly studied sciences in modern history. In recent years, the focus of the field has become largely pedagogical, sparking debates on education and the instructional approaches that best facilitate deep‐learning and student understanding. The Undergraduate Human Anatomy Program at the University of Guelph features both dissection‐ and prosection‐based human anatomy courses in the third‐year of the Human Kinetics and Bio‐Medical Science majors. Students enrolled in these courses attend the same lectures, but one cohort participates in a dissection‐based laboratory, whereas the other participates in a prosection‐based laboratory session once per week. The University of Guelph is a learner‐centred institution; thus, a continuous effort to improve the student learning experience while maintaining the efficient and effective delivery of course content is of primary focus for the program. Literature suggests that the most effective method of anatomy instruction is a multifaceted approach that provides students with various resources that they may use to build a deeper understanding of the human body. Accordingly, supplemental teaching modalities are being explored at the University of Guelph to promote deep‐learning and improve the overall educational experience for human anatomy students. The objective of this study was to compare learning approach, performance, and course satisfaction between the two aforementioned cohorts of third‐year human anatomy students so that supplemental teaching modalities may be designed to target potential shortcomings of the program. Participating students completed surveys to collect demographic data (gender, age, program of study, etc.), learning approach (Revised Two‐factor Study Process Questionnaire), and perceived course experience (Course Experience Questionnaire) measures prior to their first laboratory and after the completion of the course. Preliminary results demonstrate an overall shift toward a deeper learning approach taken by students after the completion of the course and a generally positive perceived course experience. These findings suggest that participation in a dissection‐ or prosection‐based undergraduate human anatomy course promotes deep‐learning and is considered by students to be beneficial to their educational experience.
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 | 0.000 | 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".