Student perspectives regarding the move towards student‐centered learning in the anatomy laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the compressed (<50 hrs) anatomy component of the University of Ottawa's MD Program, most time is devoted to laboratories that emphasize active learning in small groups with tutors that facilitate student‐driven education. A recent (2014) program evaluation study determined that students perceived the following: (i) the active learning environment was highly variable between groups, and was at times limited by teacher‐centered approaches; and (ii) a lack of direction and feedback was perceived by some to be a consequence of the emphasis on student‐centered learning. In light of these perceptions, the following changes were made in 2015–16: (i) there was increased training for tutors and a reduction in tutor‐to‐student ratio, to promote effective guided inquiry during lab sessions; (ii) itemized checklists were provided to add direction and structure to self‐directed learning; and (iii) online formative quizzes were provided so that students could gain insight and feedback regarding their progress. First and second year (M1 and M2) student feedback regarding the program and the tutors from the 2015–16 academic year was quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed to determine whether these changes effectively responded to student concerns, and assessment data was characterized to determine any impact on learning. Both M1 and M2 students indicated strong value for the formative quizzes, with 96% of students utilizing these resources. All students also noted satisfaction with the itemized checklists, and perceived that these resources facilitated self‐directed study in class time and provided guidance during exam preparation. In particular, M2 students (who experienced their first year labs without these tools) felt less reliant on tutor support and more certain regarding achievement of the learning objectives. While M1 students expressed strong satisfaction with the active learning environment, M2 students expressed some concern with the increased emphasis on student‐centered learning, and perceived their learning was impaired with the reduction in tutors. However, analysis of assessment data indicated that, in all regards (in‐lab quizzes and examinations), performance of M1 and M2 in 2015–16 was not adversely affected, relative to data from previous years (2012–2015). In conclusion, students generally highly rated the shift further along the student‐centered learning spectrum. Despite some concerns of students accustomed to more Faculty support, increased emphasis on student‐centered learning did not impair academic performance. Support or Funding Information University of Ottawa, Faculty of Medicine Summer Studentship Program (Innovation in Medical Education)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".