Suppr超能文献

多维学习工具在解剖学中的比较分析:一项随机对照试验。

Comparative Analysis of Multidimensional Learning Tools in Anatomy: A Randomized Control Trial.

机构信息

Department of Anatomy, Sheikh Bhikhari Medical College, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, India.

Department of Orthopedics, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.

出版信息

Ann Afr Med. 2024 Jul 1;23(3):459-465. doi: 10.4103/aam.aam_214_23. Epub 2024 Jul 20.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Anatomy teaching has traditionally been based on dissection. However, reduced hours in total and laboratory hours in gross anatomy along with a dearth of cadavers have ensued the search for a less time-consuming tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted in the Department of Anatomy in Sheikh Bhikhari Medical College, Hazaribag. A total of 282 medical students were taught gross anatomy, using three different learning modalities: dissection (n = 95), plastic models (n = 94), and three-dimensional (3D) anatomy software (n = 93). The knowledge of the students was examined by 100 multiple-choice question (MCQ) and tag questions followed by an evaluation questionnaire.

RESULTS

When performance is considered, the dissection and 3D group performed better than the plastic models group in total, MCQs, and tag questions. In the evaluation questionnaire, dissection performed better than the other two modalities. Moreover, dissection and 3D software emerged as superior to the plastic models group.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

All data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and t-test. Group-based analysis by ANOVA and gender-based analysis were done by Student's t-test. A comparison of students' perceptions was done by Kruskal-Wallis H-test.

CONCLUSION

Dissection remains a favorite with students and accomplishes a significantly higher attainment of knowledge. Plastic models are less effective but are a valuable tool in preparation for cadaveric laboratories.

摘要

简介

解剖学教学传统上基于解剖。然而,总课时和大体解剖学实验课时的减少以及尸体的缺乏导致人们一直在寻找一种耗时更少的工具。

材料与方法

这项研究在哈扎里巴格谢赫比哈里医学院解剖系进行。共有 282 名医学生使用三种不同的学习方式(解剖组 n=95、塑料模型组 n=94 和三维解剖软件组 n=93)学习大体解剖学。通过 100 道多项选择题(MCQ)和标记问题来检查学生的知识,然后进行评估问卷。

结果

就表现而言,解剖和 3D 组在总体、MCQ 和标记问题上的表现优于塑料模型组。在评估问卷中,解剖的表现优于其他两种方式。此外,解剖和 3D 软件优于塑料模型组。

统计学分析

所有数据均采用单因素方差分析和 t 检验进行分析。基于组的 ANOVA 分析和基于性别的分析通过学生 t 检验进行。通过 Kruskal-Wallis H 检验比较学生的认知。

结论

解剖仍然是学生的最爱,能显著提高知识的掌握程度。塑料模型的效果较差,但在为尸体实验室做准备方面是一种有价值的工具。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1069/11364337/20815bd275d1/AAM-23-459-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验