Comparison of Graphic Organizers Versus Online Flash Cards as Study Aids in an Elective Veterinary Cardiology Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ideal study aid format for veterinary students remains unknown. Both graphic organizers (GOs) and flash cards (FCs) have shown utility for enhancing learning in specific contexts. A mixed-methods prospective randomized crossover trial was undertaken with veterinary students ( n = 59) in an elective cardiology course. All students received identical content presented via weekly in-class lectures and were given study aids in either GO or FC format. One week later, 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 GOs and FCs. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in the form of in-depth pre- and post-course surveys. Overall, there was no significant difference in quiz scores ( p = .26) or time spent studying ( p = .33) based on study aid type. Time spent studying for each quiz, as well as other measures of study habits, decreased significantly throughout the semester. Post-course survey responses showed overall higher student satisfaction for GOs compared to FCs ( p = .022), as well as a shift in preference away from FCs throughout the semester ( p = .03). Free-text survey responses revealed that individual students had strong preferences either for or against FCs in the context of their particular study habits. In an elective veterinary cardiology course, use of GO format compared to FC format study aids resulted in equivalent short-term learning outcomes and time spent studying, with each study aid format appealing to specific learning preferences of individual students.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".