Undergraduate Student’s Preferred Learning Modality for Flipped Anatomy Laboratory Sessions
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
Introduction The flipped classroom approach (FCA) is a growing instructional method in higher education. In the flipped classroom, students’ first exposure to content is prior to class, commonly in the form of two learning modalities (LMs): a textbook reading, or a video recording. Class time then focuses on the application of knowledge. This approach has been implemented in many lecture‐based courses; however, it has yet to be fully evaluated in the anatomical laboratory (lab). It remains unclear whether students prefer traditional or flipped instruction for anatomy lab sessions and, with a FCA, which LM provides anatomical content exposure that most aligns with student preferences. Thus, the aims of this cross‐over study were: (i) to determine students’ preferred instruction type for anatomy lab sessions, (ii) to determine students’ rank‐order of learning modalities for anatomical content exposure from most to least preferred, and (iii) to establish the reasons for learning modality preferences. Methods Undergraduate students (n=59) were recruited from a systemic human anatomy course at the University of Western Ontario and were placed in one of four study groups. The groups were exposed to three flipped and one traditional lab sessions, with each session focused on a different musculoskeletal region. The flipped lab sessions used one of the following LMs for content exposure before the in‐lab component of the session: a textbook reading, a video recording, or a three‐dimensional (3D) anatomy application (app). The traditional lab sessions did not have content exposure before the in‐lab component but consisted of a lab talk during the in‐lab session using cadaveric specimens. An open‐ended questionnaire determined student’s preferred instruction type and rank‐order preference for the LMs. Open‐ended questions were coded and analyzed for themes to establish the reasons for the student’s rank‐order of the LMs. Results (i) The majority of students (57.6%) preferred a LM associated with flipped instruction compared to that associated with the traditional instruction. (ii) The average ranking of the LMs from most to least preferred were lab talk, 3D anatomy app, video recording, and textbook reading, with the textbook reading most often ranked as the least preferred LM (p < 0.05). (iii) Based on responses to the open‐ended questions, many students preferred LMs that allowed for representational visualization of the anatomical structures. Majority of students also preferred LMs, which allowed them to control their pace of learning. Inadequate visualization of the structures and lack of engagement were the main reasons the textbook reading was predominately ranked as the least preferred LM. Conclusion The FCA relies heavily on student’s gaining a baseline of knowledge before class time; therefore, it is important to determine the LMs that enhance engagement, and most align with student learning preferences to promote completion of content exposure before class. This study revealed that anatomy students prefer LMs that promote visualization of the structures and allow for control of the pace of learning. Thus, when designing LMs to expose undergraduate students to the anatomical content, consideration should be given to the incorporation of the identified preferences to maximize student engagement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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