MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Students' Preferred Pedagogical Approaches to Peer‐to‐Peer Teaching with Virtual Dissection

2019· article· en· W3174297936 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Ng, Bruce B. Forster, Andy Jiang, Savvas Nicolaou, Jeffrey Hu, Rebecca Spouge, James P. Nugent, Kathryn E. Darras

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissection (medical)Medical educationVirtual patientPsychologyMedicineVirtual realityMedical physicsRadiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In virtual dissection, near life‐sized three‐dimensional computed tomography (CT) scans are used to study human anatomy. Preferred pedagogical approaches for peer‐to‐peer teaching using this technology have not yet been explored. Aim To identify preferred pedagogical approaches in peer‐to‐peer teaching and to better understand how this adds educational value to virtual dissection in medical education. Methods Second‐year medical students developed and taught a virtual dissection laboratory for their first‐year colleagues, using an anatomy visualization table. This case‐based laboratory was designed to complement the other subjects taught in first year medicine. Participants completed a post‐laboratory survey in which collected their preferred methods for learning this new technology. Results were tabulated and summarized. Results 34 first‐year medical students (24 females, 10 males) participated in this virtual dissection laboratory. Results indicated that small group demonstration sessions were thought to be a better teaching method than large group demonstration sessions (97% vs. 24%) for peer‐to‐peer teaching using virtual dissection. Participants agreed or strongly agreed that the sessions improved their understanding of general anatomy (97%) and disease (85%), the imaging appearance of normal (94%) and pathological (97%) structures, visuospatial relationships (91%), the clinical relevance of anatomy (94%), and the role of radiology in patient care (94%). Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that watching a virtual dissection (91%) and performing the virtual dissection themselves (82%) facilitated their learning. Conclusion Students reported that the small group demonstration format of peer‐to‐peer teaching was the preferred educational approach for virtual dissection laboratories. The use of novel anatomy visualization technology by peer tutors was an effective method for improving students' understanding of radiologic anatomy and may be used to complement medical education curricula. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207