Visuospatial ability and student approach to learning as predictors of academic performance on written versus laboratory‐based assessments in human anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As hours devoted to human anatomy curricula fall under threat and curricular delivery methods remain in flux, many new teaching innovations are emerging, which require comprehensive evaluation to ensure evidence-based teaching is maintained. Although grades are the predominant measure of 'learning', alternative metrics can assess more nuanced and meaningful outcomes. Two common predictors of students' three-dimensional understanding of the body and depth of learning are visuospatial abilities and approaches to learning, respectively. This study evaluated and compared the relative predictive power of these metrics on written and laboratory-based assessments in a human anatomy course. Deep approaches to learning and visuospatial abilities were expected to positively correlate with overall performance, with visuospatial abilities being the more salient predictor, especially on laboratory-based assessments. Additionally, visuospatial abilities were expected to positively correlate with deep learning approaches and negatively correlate with surface learning approaches. Multiple linear regression models controlling for covariates found that both visuospatial abilities (p = 0.049; p = 0.014) and deep learning approaches (p = 0.001; p = 0.001) were independent significant predictors of final and laboratory-based grades, while only deep learning approaches were significantly predictive of written grades (p = 0.007). There was no significant relationship between visuospatial abilities and approaches to learning. Given these findings and the increased reliance on visuospatially demanding digital learning activities in anatomy, both metrics should be considered when evaluating the impact of teaching innovations. Further, educators should design learning resources and environments that train visuospatial abilities and promote deeper learning approaches to maximize students' success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".