MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Student Approach to Learning and Visuospatial Ability as Independent Predictors of Academic Performance in Human Anatomy

2022· article· en· W4225398119 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Wang, Sean McWatt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinesiologyPredictive validityPsychologyCovariateLinear regressionMetric (unit)CorrelationRegression analysisMedicinePhysical therapyClinical psychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several indices have been investigated for their accuracy as predictive metrics of students’ performance in anatomy courses. Both student approaches to learning (SAL) and visuospatial ability (VA) have been shown to be predictive of learning outcome achievement. However, far less anatomy‐specific evidence exists for SAL than for VA, and their respective predictive strength has yet to be examined. The present study investigated the relationship between SAL and VA as predictive metrics for student academic performance, as measured by laboratory‐based assessments. In addition, the predictive strength of each metric was evaluated to determine which of the two was most effective at quantitatively assessing anatomy learning environments. It was hypothesized that the variation in grades could be partially explained by both SAL and VA, and that the latter would have a stronger relationship to performance. Undergraduate students enrolled in an anatomy course at McGill University were surveyed for this study (total n = 138; 76.8% female; average years of age = 19.46, SD = ±1.04). Students were from kinesiology (58.0%), physical therapy (19.6%), occupational therapy (19.6 %), and other (2.9%) programs. In addition to collecting demographic data, the survey included the Revised 2‐factor Study Process Questionnaire to collect SAL on deep and surface scales, and the Mental Rotations Test to quantify VA. A multiple linear regression model was used to assess deep and surface approach to learning scores and VA as covariates that influence grades, while controlling for age, sex, and program of study [ F (6,131) = 7.741, P < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.228]. Data analyses revealed that both VA ( β = 0.802, SEM = 0.284; P = 0.006) and deep approach scores ( β = 0.776, SEM = 0.246; P = 0.002) had significant positive correlations with grades; however, surface approach scores ( β = ‐0.399, SEM = 0.280; P = 0.157) were not significantly correlated at P ≤ 0.05. Based on the coefficients, a one‐point increase on the deep approach scale was slightly more beneficial than the same point‐increase on the Mental Rotations Test; however, the advantage was minimal (+0.026%). These findings assert that SAL and VA can independently predict performance on laboratory‐based assessments in human anatomy – with VA representing a personal presage factor, and SAL representing a process factor. A deeper understanding of these metrics allows for better quantitative assessment of success when implementing curricular changes intended to improve anatomy learning environments. Therefore, both metrics should be used for a more comprehensive approach to evaluating educational interventions in anatomy.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

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 integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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