Effects of Video‐Based Learning on Human Anatomy Education: A Focus on the Peritoneal Cavity and its Contents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In the past decades, there has been an increasing effort to modify traditional learning tools to adopt them with the new demands of students. Equal access to high quality learning opportunities as well as increasing interest in self‐paced flexible studying have initiated the use of digital medial technology to produce visual learning tools. These efforts have been accelerated in challenging circumstances, such as the presence of the recent COVID‐19 pandemic. However, the availability of high quality educational videos regarding the human gross anatomy that can match the standards of the medical curriculum is limited. Thus, it is crucial to study the effects of such videos on anatomy education. Objectives The goal of this project is to investigate the role of educational videos and their utilization in medical education with special focus on the anatomy of the human body. Method An educational video was created for learners in professional programs, covering relevant information associated with the peritoneal cavity and its contents. To begin, a cadaver was dissected to clearly expose all the anatomical structures. This process was recorded in a stepwise fashion with proper instructions. The video was edited by the Camtasia 2020 software and different features, such as labels, transitions, and quiz questions, were added to enhance students’ learning experience. This video was then uploaded on YouTube and shared with students before their virtual anatomy lab for their viewing. Finally, an online survey was designed and conducted to assess a learner's experience related to this video. Results Students were asked about their purposes of watching the video as well as their opinions regarding the quality of it and the features utilized. The video has 561 views on YouTube from November 2020 to January 2021. Analysis of the data shows that the majority of the participants who completed the online survey found the video and its features enhancing their learning of the anatomy of the peritoneum. More specifically, 92.3% of the participants mentioned their purpose for watching the video to be preparing for their anatomy lab and dissection. 95.7% of the participants reported that the video assisted them in fulfilling their aforementioned purpose. In addition, 92.9% of the participants ranked the overall quality of the video as “Very Good”. Moreover, the average score (1‐5) given by participants to the features added to the video was calculated as 4.57, 4.72, and 4.36 for labelling, transitions, and quiz questions, respectively. Conclusion The feedback received from this survey strongly suggests that using digital media technology in creating educational anatomy videos is beneficial for enhancing the learning experience of students. Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B‐Th9lk3TVk
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".