The Usage of “Quizizz”™ App by Sport Sciences Students in the Bachelor’s Degree Anatomy Lecture and Its Effects on Attitude and Course Success
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
Purpose: The aim of this study is to examine the effects of technologically assisted learning for anatomy courses in sport science collegiate. Methods: One hundred forty-four first-year students from sport sciences faculty attended a required anatomy course in the syllabus. The participants of this class were composed of two learning groups as Classical Learning Group (n=48), and New Approach Group (n=96) based on the lecture style. Classical anatomy course carried out with instruction-based method via PowerPoint lecture on the anatomy course materials such as textbooks, models, and printed visualizations of anatomical sites whereas “Quizizz”™ app-based one performed interactively within a technology-assisted way. The end of the semester, participants answered a reliable and valid survey named Anatomy Lectures Attitude Questionnaire (ALAQ). Results: There was a significant difference in the mid-term and course success when compared Classical Learning (CL) and New Approach (NA). However, no significant differences observed final examination, ALAQ results, and sub-factors’. There was a very low correlation between mid-term, final, course success and ALAQ results in NA group. However, no significantly correlation found between mid-term, final, course success and ALAQ results in CL group. Conclusion: The findings reported here suggest that “Quizizz”™ app can enable improving learning outcomes and contribute to test scores for human anatomy in sport sciences collegiate. We do not conceive the substitute traditional learning method within the educational applications for anatomy courses, but it could be regarded as a supplement method of teaching in higher 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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