MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199235337 · doi:10.1002/ase.2136

Responding to Covid‐19: A thematic analysis of students' perspectives on modified learning activities during an emergency transition to remote human anatomy education

2021· article· en· W3199235337 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnatomical Sciences Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisContext (archaeology)Distance educationPsychologyMedical educationEducational technologyMedicineMathematics educationQualitative researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) global pandemic forced many post-secondary institutions to move their teaching online, which had a substantial impact on students enrolled in laboratory-based courses in fields like human anatomy. This descriptive study collected students' perspectives on the transition to remote education, with specific attention to the teaching activities, resources, and assessments used in an undergraduate Clinical Human Visceral Anatomy course at McGill University. Through inductive semantic thematic analysis, student-held values for effective remote education were identified and grouped into the following themes: (1) preferences for communication, (2) values for remote learning activities and resources, (3) values for remote assessment, and (4) perceived positive and negative impacts of remote education on learning. Students generally valued having clear communication, opportunities for both synchronous and asynchronous learning activities, and flexible assessment formats that maintained alignment with the course outcomes and activities. Many felt that remote education had a net-negative impact on their learning, course satisfaction, and sense of community. However, there were no significant differences in grades on laboratory quizzes administered before and after the shutdown (P = 0.443), and grades on the remote final examination were significantly higher than those on the in-person midterm examination (P < 0.001). These findings are discussed in the context of modern educational theories and practices related to remote teaching. Strategies for facilitating a student-centered environment online are also proposed. Future longitudinal research into skill development, learning outcome attainment, and the evolving perspectives of students and instructors operating in remote education contexts is warranted.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.411 · 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