Meta-analysis and review of learner performance and preference: virtual versus optical microscopy

Wilson, Adam B.; Taylor, Mark G.; Klein, Barbie A.; Sugrue, Megan K.; Whipple, Elizabeth C.; Brokaw, James J.

doi:10.1111/medu.12944

Cited by 38 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The protocol presented herein closely follows a procedure previously described by Wilson et al (2016). Four teams of paired researchers reviewed roughly one-quarter of all records retrieved.…”

Section: Study Selection and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analysis of anatomy laboratory pedagogies

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate regarding anatomy laboratory teaching approaches is ongoing and controversial. To date, the literature has yielded only speculative conclusions because of general methodological weaknesses and a lack of summative empirical evidence. Through a meta-analysis, this study compared the effectiveness of instructional laboratory approaches used in anatomy education to objectively and more conclusively synthesize the existing literature. Studies published between January 1965 and December 2015 were searched through five databases. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were screened using eligibility criteria to determine their appropriateness for study inclusion. Only numerical data were extracted for analysis. A summary effect size was estimated to determine the effects of laboratory pedagogies on learner performance and perceptions data were compiled to provide additional context. Of the 3,035 records screened, 327 underwent full-text review. Twenty-seven studies, comprising a total of 7,731 participants, were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis detected no effect (standardized mean difference 5 20.03; 95% CI 5 20.16 to 0.10; P 5 0.62) on learner performance. Additionally, a moderator analysis detected no effects (P 0.16) for study design, learner population, intervention length, or specimen type. Across studies, student performance on knowledge examinations was equivalent regardless of being exposed to either dissection or another laboratory instructional strategy. This was true of every comparison investigated (i.e., dissection vs. prosection, dissection vs. digital media, dissection vs. models/modeling, and dissection vs. hybrid). In the context of short-term knowledge gains alone,

show abstract

Section: Study Selection and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analysis of anatomy laboratory pedagogies

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this may promote the tendency for students to undervalue the importance/existence of variation in tissue sections [14]. It has been suggested by Helle and colleagues [15] that learning using virtual microscopy results in greater learning gains for high-performing students, compared with lower-performing students.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These findings are unsurprising, because activities that promote interaction and engagement with microscopic morphology are needed to improve learning outcomes, irrespective of the medium employed. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis of virtual microscopy using multiple standardised comparative studies concluded that, on balance, VM is superior to LM for learning [14]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Learning pathology using collaborative vs. individual annotation of whole slide images: a mixed methods trial

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStudents in biomedical disciplines require understanding of normal and abnormal microscopic appearances of human tissues (histology and histopathology). For this purpose, practical classes in these disciplines typically use virtual microscopy, viewing digitised whole slide images in web browsers. To enhance engagement, tools have been developed to enable individual or collaborative annotation of whole slide images within web browsers. To date, there have been no studies that have critically compared the impact on learning of individual and collaborative annotations on whole slide images.MethodsJunior and senior students engaged in Pathology practical classes within Medical Science and Medicine programs participated in cross-over trials of individual and collaborative annotation activities. Students’ understanding of microscopic morphology was compared using timed online quizzes, while students’ perceptions of learning were evaluated using an online questionnaire.ResultsFor senior medical students, collaborative annotation of whole slide images was superior for understanding key microscopic features when compared to individual annotation; whilst being at least equivalent to individual annotation for junior medical science students. Across cohorts, students agreed that the annotation activities provided a user-friendly learning environment that met their flexible learning needs, improved efficiency, provided useful feedback, and helped them to set learning priorities. Importantly, these activities were also perceived to enhance motivation and improve understanding.ConclusionCollaborative annotation improves understanding of microscopic morphology for students with sufficient background understanding of the discipline. These findings have implications for the deployment of annotation activities in biomedical curricula, and potentially for postgraduate training in Anatomical Pathology.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0831-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…In health professional education, literature reviews take increasingly diverse forms. For example, in this edition of Medical Education , there are meta‐analyses, systematic reviews, a thematic analysis and a critical synthesis in the form of an essay, a traditional form that is not always considered a literature review per se . Other common review types include integrative, realist and narrative reviews.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%