Importance of learning the connection between form and function together - redesigning anatomy and physiology for improved student learning outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First-year undergraduate level human anatomy and physiology courses are required for numerous degrees and programs, including nursing, kinesiology, and biomedical sciences. These courses create an important foundation for students to build their continued learning. However, identifying the best way to offer these courses is still not fully clear. Some post-secondary institutions and/or programs offer integrated anatomy and physiology courses, while others, separate anatomy from physiology. As well, with the increased requirement and desire for online formats, additional consideration into course delivery is needed. Previously, we evaluated and reported student human physiology content retention 3-months following course completion at our institution that offers separate anatomy and physiology courses. We found that overall content retention was poor and exacerbated in the online format of course delivery. Given this, we identified that there may be a disconnect in the way these courses are delivered that is problematic to learning. Currently, the physiology course follows in the semester after the anatomy course. In both courses, a new body system is discussed each week in rapid succession. Out of necessity, the anatomy course includes some basic physiology to improve understanding and a review of anatomy occurs in the physiology course to fully understand function. Thus, there is significant overlap that takes away from time that can be spent reinforcing complex physiological topics. We hypothesize that redesign of these courses using a systems-based approach to combine the anatomy and physiology within one course will improve student retention of core physiological concepts, since students would learn both the form (anatomy) and function (physiology) together. We will discuss the considerations that we have evaluated with respect to the redesign of these courses and welcome discussion with respect to the strengths and weaknesses of separate versus combined anatomy and physiology curriculum delivery. Teaching Fellows Program, Trent University This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2023 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".