A comparison of an interactive computer-based method with a conventional reading approach for learning pelvic anatomy

Corton, Marlene M.; McIntire, Don D.; Wai, Clifford Y.; Ling, Frank W.; Wendel, George D.

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.076

Cited by 26 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding was consistent with the three previous randomized, controlled trials with the 3D larynx module . Computer‐aided instruction has been found to be as effective when compared to traditional methods, for example, in teaching shoulder anatomy and pelvic anatomy . Some studies have even found CAI to be superior to traditional teaching methods in teaching ear anatomy and wrist anatomy, for example.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Motivation in computer‐assisted instruction

Shewokis

Ting

et al. 2016

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Motivation in computer‐assisted instruction

Shewokis

Ting

et al. 2016

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Level 1a (learner satisfaction). The favored method for achieving this level of evaluation was via student surveys, with intervention-specific surveys (71.7%; 91 of 127) (e.g., Brewer et al, 2012;Stirling and Birt, 2014;Ferrer-Torregrosa et al, 2015), adaptations to existing module evaluations (18.1%; 23 of 127) (e.g., Choudhury et al, 2010;Barbeau et al, 2013;Wilkinson and Barter, 2016), or surveys to compare traditional resources with TEL resources (10.2%; 13 of 127) (e.g., Corton et al, 2006;Adamczyk et al, 2009;Hopkins et al, 2011), all reported. The most popular approach was via Likert scale questions (e.g., McNulty et al, 2009;Wright and Hendricson, 2010;O'Reilly et al, 2016), with 81.8% (104 of 127) of the total number of papers reporting Level 1a utilizing this approach.…”

Section: Types Of Evaluation Within Eligible Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How comprehensive are research studies investigating the efficacy of technology‐enhanced learning resources in anatomy education? A systematic review

Clunie

Morris

Joynes

et al. 2017

Anatomical Sciences Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anatomy education is at the forefront of integrating innovative technologies into its curricula. However, despite this rise in technology numerous authors have commented on the shortfall in efficacy studies to assess the impact such technology-enhanced learning (TEL) resources have on learning. To assess the range of evaluation approaches to TEL across anatomy education, a systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, the Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Scopus, and Google Scholar, with a total of 3,345 articles retrieved. Following the PRISMA method for reporting items, 153 articles were identified and reviewed against a published framework-the technology-enhanced learning evaluation model (TELEM). The model allowed published reports to be categorized according to evaluations at the level of (1) learner satisfaction, (2) learning gain, (3) learner impact, and (4) institutional impact. The results of this systematic review reveal that most evaluation studies into TEL within anatomy curricula were based on learner satisfaction, followed by module or course learning outcomes. Randomized controlled studies assessing learning gain with a specific TEL resource were in a minority, with no studies reporting a comprehensive assessment on the overall impact of introducing a specific TEL resource (e.g., return on investment). This systematic review has provided clear evidence that anatomy education is engaged in evaluating the impact of TEL resources on student education, although it remains at a level that fails to provide comprehensive causative evidence. Anat Sci Educ 11: 303-319. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.

show abstract

“…Four papers had no comparison or control group and did not measure a learning gain (Adamczyk, 2009;Blake, 2003;Dantas, 2008;McAteer, 1996); three evaluated an inappropriate student population (Dunsworth, 2007;McLean, 2005;Corton, 2006); eight had incomplete and/or irretrievable data (Fawver, 1990;Garg, 2002;Stith, 2004;McFarlin, 2008;Kohlmeier, 2003;Goldberg, 2000;Petersson, 2009 andGuy, 1992). Three other papers were also excluded on the basis of being a single-cohort study with no comparison to either a control group or as part of a before-and-after design (Dewhurst, 2000;McNulty, 2000;McNulty, 2004).…”

Section: Excluded Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%