close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

ase.123

код для вставкиСкачать
RESEARCH REPORT
Use of Interactive Sessions and E-learning in Teaching
Anatomy to First-year Optometry Students
Bipasha Choudhury,* Ingrid Gouldsborough, Stefan Gabriel
Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Students enrolled in the Optometry program at the University of Manchester are required
to take a functional anatomy course during the first year of their studies. Low mean
scores in the written examination of this unit for the past two academic years energized
staff to rethink the teaching format. Interactive sessions lasting 20 minutes each were
introduced during the two hour lecture sessions. In these sessions students reinforced
their anatomical knowledge learned in lectures, through playing games such as anatomy
bingo and solving anatomical anagrams. In addition, five e-learning modules were also
introduced for students to complete in their own time. A pre- and postcourse questionnaire were distributed to obtain student views on their expectations of the course and
interactive sessions. Comparisons were made between written examination results from
2008 to 2009 to written examination results from the previous five academic years to see
if the interactive sessions and e-learning modules had any impact on student knowledge.
In addition, comparisons were made between student performances on the functional
anatomy course with their performance in all of the other assessments taken by the students during their first year of study. Analysis of the questionnaires showed that student’s
expectations of the course were fulfilled and the interactive sessions were well received
by the majority. There was a significant increase (P 0.01) in the mean examination
score in 2008–2009 after introduction of the interactive sessions and e-learning modules
compared with scores in previous years. The introduction of interactive sessions has
increased student enjoyment of the module and along with the e-learning modules
have had a positive impact on student examination results. Anat Sci Educ 3:39–45, 2010.
© 2009 American Association of Anatomists.
Key words: interactive teaching; gross anatomy; optometry; histology; e-learning
INTRODUCTION
All students enrolled in the Optometry program at the University of Manchester are required to take a functional anatomy course during their first year of study. The aims of this
course are to give students an understanding of the functional
anatomy of the eye and related structures. Traditionally, this
module was delivered by a series of 12 two hour lectures and
six laboratory sessions in the dissecting room. Past experience
has shown that optometry students are generally highly moti*Correspondence to: Dr. Bipasha Choudhury, 1.124 Stopford Building,
Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK.
E-mail: bipasha.choudhury@manchester.ac.uk
Received 23 June 2009; Revised 10 November 2009; Accepted 11
November 2009.
Published online 14 December 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.
interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/ase.123
© 2009 American Association of Anatomists
Anatomical Sciences Education
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010
vated to learn but do not always do well in this taught anatomy module. This may be due to different learning needs of
the optometry students or may be due to the complexities of
learning anatomy. This is the only anatomy module the
optometry students take during their three years of study at
the university and for most of them, it is the first time they
have encountered anatomical terminology. Low mean scores
in the written examination of this unit in the last two academic years was the main driving force for rethinking ways
to help students to learn and consolidate their anatomical
knowledge. It is well recognized that students enjoy and learn
more effectively through interactive discussions (Sander et al.,
2000; Nasmith and Steinert, 2001; Ernst and Colthorpe,
2007). Interactive sessions where students reinforce their
knowledge (learned in lectures and laboratory sessions)
through playing games such as bingo, enhance the learning
experience (Sheader et al., 2008). This process of active learning is recognized to promote better student engagement
(Cross, 1987). Several studies (Dantas and Kemm, 2008;
Anat Sci Educ 3:39–45 (2010)
Dobson, 2008) have shown online assessments have a positive impact on student examination scores. As a consequence,
interactive sessions were introduced into the traditional curriculum. In addition, a number of online assessments were
introduced for the students to complete in their own time.
Aims
This study aimed to investigate how the anatomy-based interactive sessions were received by the students. In addition, we
evaluated the impact of interactive sessions and e-learning
modules on student examination results.
METHODS
Eighty-nine first-year students enrolled in the Optometry
degree program at the University of Manchester partook in
this study (age range: 18–65 years). All students were
required to take the module ‘‘Functional Anatomy of the
Eye’’ which is comprised of 12 two hour lectures in functional anatomy and histology of the eye, orbit and related
structures and six 50 minute taught practical sessions looking
at relevant prosections with anatomy demonstrators. Interactive sessions were introduced into the two hour lectures. In
addition, five e-learning modules were completed by the students in their own time.
Interactive Sessions
Six interactive sessions were held over the 12-week lecture
course. They occurred every week from week two to week
six, whilst the final session was in week nine. Each interactive
session lasted 20 minutes and was held midway through the
two hour lecture slot. The interactive sessions were designed
to reinforce the anatomy material learned in the previous
week in an interesting way and to encourage students to discuss the material with their peers and staff members alike.
Feedback, including the correct answers, was given at the end
of each interactive session.
Many of the interactive sessions took the form of popular
games. A neuroanatomy crossword was devised for one session
and in another, students had to solve a series of anagrams (e.g.,
‘‘cranial Rambo’’ 5 lamina cribrosa; ‘‘steel arch’’ 5 the sclera).
Lacrimal apparatus ‘‘bingo’’ was played with prizes given to
the first student to correctly complete a bingo card. For this
session, each student was given a bingo card with nine numbered boxes (each containing an integer between one and nine
that was generated randomly using Microsoft Office Excel,
Redmond, WA). Nine questions relating to the lacrimal
apparatus were shown as slides (using Microsoft PowerPoint,
Redmond, WA) with each student working independently and
writing the correct answer in the appropriate box (e.g., answer
to question one in box number 1 on the bingo card).
One session took the format of ‘‘Who wants to be a millionaire’’ with students playing in teams of four answering 14
anatomical questions (e.g., Which one of the four following
options is the correct way to test the integrity of the orbicularis occuli muscle: (a) screw up your eyes, (b) puff out your
cheeks, (c) look surprised, and (d) look angry). In another
session, a pair of activities was designed to encourage the students to employ their drawing skills to demonstrate how well
they understood the histology they were learning. Half of the
cohort (Group 1) were given the name of a type of epithelium
(e.g., stratified squamous epithelium) and were asked to draw
40
this on a piece of acetate. The other half of the cohort (Group
2) then had to guess what type of epithelium had been drawn.
Then, Group 2 was given histological slides and was asked to
determine what type of epithelium they were looking at. This
meant both sets of students had to have a good understanding
of the different types of epithelium to first draw the correct
type, and then state what had been drawn. Another session
involved splitting the class into two groups, where Group 1
were given different movements to perform (e.g., abduct the
left shoulder, extend the right elbow) for Group 2 to guess.
Group 2 were given an anatomical term (e.g., medial) and
were asked to construct a sentence featuring it. Then, they presented their sentences, excluding the anatomical term, to the
whole class. Group 1 then had to guess what that term was
(e.g., ‘‘My eye is. . .to my ear’’).
Questionnaire
Students were given a precourse questionnaire (Table 1) at
the beginning of the first lecture of the semester. It was
stressed that this was not a form of assessment. This questionnaire was designed to evaluate the perceptions of student’s teaching and learning styles and also their views on the
relevance of learning anatomy for their future careers. Openended questions were asked and students were given 20
minutes to complete the questionnaire. Open-ended questions
were used so as not to bias student responses and to allow
flexibility for the student to answer in the way they thought
was most appropriate (Minasian-Batmanian et al., 2005).
A postcourse questionnaire (Table 2) was distributed to
the students during the last lecture of the semester. This consisted of the same four open-ended questions as in the precourse questionnaire, as well as one other question. The final
question was designed to assess the usefulness of the interactive sessions and consisted of a series of nine statements
which the students had to answer by ticking the box which
most closely reflected their opinion (disagree, moderately disagree, moderately agree, agree, and not applicable).
The questionnaires were analyzed by grouping the
responses into categories applicable to each question posed.
Themes were identified and their incidence reported.
E-learning Modules
Five modules, each consisting of ten questions relating to the
lectures, were made available for the students to complete in
a secure online learning environment. Each module was
worth 1% (successful completion of all five modules would
earn students 5% of the 100% available for the entire unit;
of the remainder up to 50% could be earned from the written
paper, and 45% could be earned from the anatomy spotter
examination). The questions asked were grouped into themes.
As an example, Module 1 consisted of questions on anatomical terminology as well as the skull and the meninges.
Themes for the other modules were as follows: neuroanatomy, histology, lacrimal apparatus, cranial nerves II–VII,
layers of eyeball, retina, extra ocular muscles, brain, and visual pathway. The questions had a variety of formats including multiple-choice questions, fill in the blanks with the most
appropriate word, combination [students to pick the correct
answer(s) from a list], and jumbled sentences (for the students
to unscramble). Automatic online feedback was given once
the module was completed. If a student had got an answer
wrong, the correct answer was not given to them but reasons
Choudhury et al.
Table 1.
The Precourse Questionnaire. This was Distributed to Students at the Very Start of the Lecture Course
(Prior to Any Lectures Being Delivered)
Optometry learning 2008–2009
We are interested in your views on teaching and learning. We would be grateful if you would fill in this questionnaire honestly and
thoughtfully. All answers are anonymous. This is NOT an examination.
1. What are your expectations of this course (BIOLl0171)?
2. What do you think the term ‘‘anatomy’’ means?
3. What do you understand by the term ‘‘histology?’’
4. In your opinion, what is the best way to learn a subject? (e.g., by attending lectures only, self-study, tutorials, practicals,
studying with a partner, and a combination of these)
5. In your opinion, what is the best way to learn anatomy?
6. Do you think studying anatomy will be relevant to your future career choice? Why?
7. How much anatomy do you think an optometrist needs to know?
8. In this lecture course, we will hold several interactive sessions. What do you expect from an interactive session?
Thank You for Your Time
why the answer they had chosen was wrong were divulged.
The first three e-learning modules were kept open for two
weeks each, whilst the last two modules were only kept open
for a week each (due to timetabling constraints). Each student was allowed two attempts at each module and their
highest score was taken. Answers submitted by students were
marked automatically by the computer (after staff had inputted the correct answers to each question in the secure e-learning environment) and a score awarded to them. The written
examination scores for the anatomy unit were compared to
that of another first-year unit, Geometrical Optics, which had
also introduced new e-learning modules for the first time in
2008–2009. The same cohort of students completed both
modules in the first semester of their studies in year one. This
comparison allowed us to assess if the introduction of
e-learning modules had any impact on student learning and
examination scores.
Qualitative Data
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out
followed by a post hoc analysis using Dunnett’s test, (SPSS
version 16; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), to compare the written
examination results for the year 2008–2009 with those of the
previous five academic years to see if the interactive sessions
had a statistically significant impact on students written
examination results. To compare student performance on the
Anatomy unit with the performance in all of the other assessments, taken by the students during their first-year paired
t-tests, were carried out between the mark obtained by each
individual for this unit, and the mean mark obtained by that
individual for all the other units. Each of the academic years
between 2003–2004 and 2008–2009 inclusive were considered separately. Pearson’s correlation was carried out between
the examination scores for this unit and those of other units
Anatomical Sciences Education
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010
taken by the same students for each of the last five academic
years. The marks for the e-learning modules were completely
excluded from the analysis as we wanted to see what impact,
if any, the interactive sessions may have had on the written
examination results. In addition, a one-way ANOVA was
performed on the mean mark for all other units (excluding
the Anatomy unit) across all years to determine whether variations in student performance reflected differences in the
cohorts and/or assessment difficulty.
RESULTS
Sixty-five precourse and fifty-six postcourse questionnaires
were returned demonstrating a response rate of 73% and
63%, respectively.
Interactive Sessions
When asked about their expectations from an interactive session (in the precourse questionnaire), 51% did not know
what to expect. The rest of the answers were variable but
included learning from each other and consolidating knowledge learned in lectures. Some expected them to be question
and answer sessions between students and staff.
Data derived from the postcourse questionnaire showed
54% of students agreed (with 30% moderately agreeing)
with the statement ‘‘the interactive session activities helped
me to determine areas where I needed to do more work’’
(Fig. 1). Eighty-six percent of students agreed or moderately
agreed that the activities reinforced their learning of the
material (Fig. 2) and only 7% of students said they found the
activities too simple. Seventy-two percent of students
disagreed or moderately disagreed with the statement ‘‘the
activities were a waste of time.’’ Sixty-one percent found
the activities fun compared to 36% who did not (Fig. 3).
Thirty-nine percent of students moderately agreed that the
41
Table 2.
The Postcourse Questionnaire. This was Distributed to Students During the Last Lecture of the Course
Optometry learning 2008–2009
We are interested in your views on teaching and learning. We would be grateful if you would fill in this questionnaire honestly and
thoughtfully. All answers are anonymous.
1. Were your expectations of this course (BIOLl0171) fulfilled?
2. What do you understand by the term ‘‘anatomy’’?
3. What do you understand by the term ‘‘histology’’?
4. In your opinion, what is the best way to learn anatomy?
5. In this lecture course, we held several interactive sessions. Please give your opinions by completing the table below.
Address the statements below by ticking the box which most closely reflects your opinion regarding the interactive sessions.
Disagree
Moderately
disagree
Moderately
agree
Agree
Not
applicable
1
The interactive session activities have helped me
develop team working skills.
&
&
&
&
&
2
The interactive session activities help me to determine
areas where I needed to do more work.
&
&
&
&
&
3
I found the activities too simple.
&
&
&
&
&
4
The activities reinforced my learning.
&
&
&
&
&
5
The lecture material helped me complete the activities.
&
&
&
&
&
6
I felt that the activities were a waste of time.
&
&
&
&
&
7
I found that the activities were fun.
&
&
&
&
&
8
The activities allowed me to utilize my knowledge.
&
&
&
&
&
9
The activities helped me develop lateral thinking skills.
&
&
&
&
&
Please give any other comments here:
Thank You for Your Time
interactive sessions helped them to develop team working
skills with 14% firmly agreeing that this was the case. An
overwhelming majority of students (80%) agreed or moderately agreed that the activities allowed them to utilize their
knowledge with only 2% disagreeing with this statement.
Questionnaire
Responses from both sets of questionnaires were grouped
under the headings below.
Understanding anatomy and histology. Variable
responses were obtained for the questions ‘‘what do you
think the term ‘anatomy’ means?’’ and ‘‘what do you think
the term ‘histology’ means?’’ in the precourse questionnaire.
Thirty-one percent of students indicated that the term anatomy means to ‘‘study the body,’’ with responses incorporating
‘‘the structure and function of the body.’’ Fifteen percent of
42
students had ‘‘no idea’’ whilst the rest responded with vague
answers (‘‘body,’’ ‘‘section,’’ and ‘‘the map of something’’).
Fifty-five percent of students did not know what ‘‘histology’’
meant with 31% giving incorrect answers (‘‘something to do
with the blood?,’’ ‘‘the history of science,’’ and ‘‘the history of
humans?’’). Fourteen percent of students had the correct
notion that histology was ‘‘the study of different cells and
organs.’’
In contrast with the precourse questionnaire, 89% and
96% of students gave a good description when asked ‘‘what
do you understand by the term anatomy’’ and ‘‘histology,’’
respectively in the postcourse questionnaire. Ninety-seven percent of all the students (data from postcourse questionnaire)
felt that studying anatomy would be relevant to their future
careers. Forty-four percent of this cohort felt it was important
to study the eye solely, whilst 38% stated studying the eye
and related structures was relevant to their careers. One
Choudhury et al.
Figure 3.
Figure 1.
Student responses to the statement ‘‘the activities helped me to determine areas
where I needed to do more work.’’ The graph shows the percentage of student
responses to each category (data derived from the postcourse questionnaire).
student commented, ‘‘as a primary healthcare practitioner,
optometrists need to be aware of links to other parts of the
body and the implications of this.’’
Student expectations. Responses to ‘‘What are your
expectations of this course?’’ in the precourse questionnaire
indicated that 74% of students expected to learn the anatomy
of the eye and related structures. Interestingly, only 25% of
students stated they expected this module to help them pass
their degree and to enable them to become good optometrists.
Data derived from the postcourse questionnaire showed
93% of students stated their expectations had been fulfilled
by this course. Many of them made additional statements
such as more dissection would be welcomed. Although the
students were not explicitly asked if they found this course
relevant to their studies, five students commented that this
course was particularly relevant to their degree program (‘‘it
Student responses to the statement ‘‘I found the activities fun.’’ The graph
shows the percentage of student responses to each category (data derived from
the postcourse questionnaire).
was a very interesting course and I think it will actually be
useful in my career’’).
Learning styles. The majority of students (59%—data
derived from precourse questionnaire) thought the best way
to learn anatomy was by a combination of lectures, practical
examinations, tutorials, and self-study. Thirteen of these students emphasized the need for learning anatomy using
prosected material. Data derived from the postcourse questionnaire revealed that 95% of students preferred to use a
combination of different teaching and learning methods (lectures, self-study, tutorials, practical examinations, and group
study) when studying a subject. When asked, ‘‘in your opinion, what is the best way to learn anatomy,’’ 89% of students
thought that a practical approach was the most useful way of
learning anatomy with 33% of these mentioning dissection
specifically. Most of the responses may be summed up by the
answer of one student, ‘‘actually seeing, touching, and learning by hands on experience.’’
E-learning Modules
The grades for this component of the course ranged from
55% to 100%. Grades for the e-learning modules were completely excluded from the analysis. The mean grade for
Geometrical Optics, after the introduction of six e-learning
modules was 70% in 2008–2009, compared to 47% the previous academic year.
Qualitative Data
Figure 2.
Student responses to the statement ‘‘The activities reinforced my learning.’’ The
graph shows the percentage of student responses to each category (data derived
from the postcourse questionnaire).
Anatomical Sciences Education
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010
The mean grade for this anatomy unit in 2008–2009 was
70%. The grades for this unit in the previous five academic
years (2003–2004 to 2007–2008) were as follows: 61%,
63%, 41%, 36%, 47%, and 70%, respectively. Grades for
this anatomy unit for 2008–2009 were significantly higher,
(P < 0.01, one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s post hoc test),
when compared to those of each of the five previous academic years (Fig. 4). The grade for this unit compared to
each optometry student’s mean grade for the year (excluding
the grade for this unit) showed that students performed
significantly worse (P < 0.01, paired t-tests) in this unit
43
Figure 4.
The columns show the mean grade obtained in the anatomy written examination (BIOL10171) and the mean grades obtained in all other modules in year
one of the Optometry degree. The other modules taken during the year
included physiology, data handling, dispensing, maths, excitable cells, and
refraction.
compared to other units for the academic years 2003–2004
to 2007–2008. However, in 2008–2009, the students performed significantly better (P < 0.001, paired t-tests) in this
unit compared to the others taken in the same year. For each
of the years tested (2003–2004 to 2008–2009 inclusive), there
was a significant positive correlation (using Pearson’s correlation where r 5 10.821, P < 0.001 in 2008–2009 for example) between the examination results for this unit, and those
of other units taken by the same students, indicating that the
level of performance on the Anatomy unit reflected the overall ability of the students. Student performance on all units,
when the anatomy unit was excluded, was comparable across
the years studied (P < 0.001, one-way ANOVA with Duncan’s post hoc test).
DISCUSSION
It is clear from the results of this study that the majority of
students found the interactive sessions useful and an interesting way to learn and consolidate material. It promoted student engagement and kept their attention. Responses such as
‘‘the break in the middle of a two-hr lecture is definitely necessary,’’ ‘‘I enjoyed the course and the interactive sessions
greatly,’’ ‘‘You made it fun!,’’ ‘‘the interactive sessions were
fun! I wish they did them in every subject,’’ and ‘‘I loved the
activities’ show that the interactive sessions were received
warmly by many students. Of course there are many different
learning styles, and the sessions were not to the liking of
some students. More importantly, this study showed that the
interactive sessions helped students identify their weak areas
and could help them focus their revision more. With most of
the students finding the interactive sessions an engaging way
to learn, it can be said that this form of teaching has had a
positive impact on student learning. Interactive sessions have
encouraged students to discuss anatomical matters with their
peers. Active learning has long been known to promote better
44
and more effective student learning (Rao and DiCarlo, 2000;
Prince, 2004; Philip et al., 2008; Vasan et al., 2008) and this
study confirms these findings.
The interactive sessions can be adapted to suit almost any
discipline. They are used at our institution to consolidate
physiology and pharmacology teachings to first-year Nursing
students and have proved to be both effective and popular
(Sheader et al., 2008). Taking the ‘‘anagram activity’’ as an
example, this has been applied to asthma drugs (small u-boat
5 salbutamol) to consolidate pharmacology teaching. As
such, the anatomical content of the interactive sessions can
be readily changed to suit any subject and certainly any anatomical specialty.
The majority of students had their expectations of this
course fulfilled. With a diverse range of student abilities and
ages, it was pleasing to get such positive feedback. Some students felt they could learn more detailed anatomy if more
time could be spent ‘‘dissecting.’’ These students do not perform any actual dissections during the practical sessions.
These comments most likely refer to wanting to spend
increased time in the dissecting room looking at prosections
and plastic models. However, curriculum pressures and
monopolization of the dissecting room by other student
groups means increased time in the dissecting room is
unfortunately not a valid option. It is very reassuring to
know that at the very least, students have now discovered
what ‘‘histology’’ means and more have a better understanding of what ‘‘anatomy’’ means.
Students on professional and vocational courses often cannot see the need to learn ‘‘more than they need to know’’ to
pass their examinations and gain their qualification (extrinsic
motivation) (Weir, 2008). Whilst this is also true for the majority of these optometry students (confirmed by this study),
some of the responses made in the precourse questionnaire
showed that some have an appreciation that learning anatomy beyond just the ‘‘eye’’ will stand them in good stead for
their future careers.
This study suggests that using interactive sessions has a
beneficial effect on student learning as the student’s final
grades have improved with the introduction of our new methods. The mean written examination scores for the anatomy
unit have improved significantly from those of the previous
years. There are several possible reasons for this improvement. The 2008–2009 cohort of students may have been
more able than those in previous years: this seems unlikely
although as the comparison of unit grades, excluding the
anatomy unit, showed that there was no difference in the
overall average grades between the years. Students were performing significantly worse on this unit compared to the rest
of their units for the years 2003–2004 to 2007–2008. This
may be due to several reasons including poor delivery of
teaching and the relative difficulty of the examination paper
for anatomy. There was a positive correlation between the
score on the anatomy unit and that in the other units, indicating that the more able students were doing well on the
unit and that the weaker students were doing less well, as
would be expected if the examination paper had a good level
of discrimination. In 2008–2009 where the two interventions
were applied, the mean grade for the anatomy unit was
higher when compared to the mean grade for other units.
This increase in grades cannot be attributed solely to the
interventions taken on the basis of the available data to date.
Other factors such as a change in one of the teaching staff
and the introduction of e-learning modules may have also
Choudhury et al.
contributed to the increase in the mean grade. More data are
required from several different cohorts taking the new form
of the unit before firm conclusions can be drawn.
In attempting to analyze any impact the e-learning modules may have had on examination scores a comparison was
made between the written examination scores of this module
and another first-year module, Geometrical Optics. The same
cohort of students completed both modules in their first semester of studies. The mean written examination result for
Geometrical Optics in 2007–2008 was 47%. There is a practical component to this module but the grades for it were not
included in the analysis. The mean written examination
results for the same module in 2008–2009 was 70%, after six
e-learning modules were introduced (all other aspects of the
module remained identical and again, the practical marks
were not included in the analysis). This represents a 23%
improvement in the overall mean mark of the written examination. This increase in mean scores is reflected in the anatomy module when five e-learning modules were introduced in
2008–2009 (mean grade in 2007–2008 was 48% which
increased to 70% in 2008–2009). This would suggest that the
e-learning modules have had a beneficial impact on student
learning and examination scores for both the above mentioned modules, although other variables cannot be discounted. This study shows that online assessments can, in
part, help to account for the increase in examination scores
as other studies (Dantas and Kemm, 2008; Dobson, 2008)
have shown.
CONCLUSIONS
Interactive sessions were well received by the majority of students. Mean scores for the written component of this unit
have increased significantly in 2008–2009 when compared to
the previous five academic years. This study has shown that
these sessions facilitated student learning in anatomy and
may have helped students to better retain information. Students responded that they have better team working skills as
a result of these sessions and that they found the sessions
very enjoyable. In addition, the e-learning modules helped
students to consolidate their knowledge and had a positive
impact on student learning. Such sessions can be adapted to
suit any anatomical specialty and any discipline.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our thanks to Dr. Michelle Keown (Faculty of Life Sciences,
University of Manchester) for her suggestions for this
manuscript and Dr. Nick Ashton (Faculty of Life Sciences,
Anatomical Sciences Education
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010
University of Manchester) for his assistance with the statistics
and suggestions for this manuscript.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
BIPASHA CHOUDHURY, B.Sc., M.B.Ch.B., is a teaching fellow of anatomy in the Faculty of Life Sciences at the University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. She coordinates the anatomy and histology teaching for first-year
optometrists.
INGRID GOULDSBOROUGH, B.Sc., Ph.D., is a senior
teaching fellow of anatomy in the Faculty of Life Sciences at
the University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
She coordinates the anatomy teaching for first and second
year medical and dental students.
STEFAN GABRIEL, B.Eng., M.Sc., Ph.D., is a teaching
fellow of anatomy in the Faculty of Life Sciences at the University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. He
teaches anatomy and histology to the first year optometry
students.
LITERATURE CITED
Cross PK. 1987. Teaching for learning. Am Assoc High Edu Bull 39:3–7.
Dantas AM, Kemm RE. 2008. A blended approach to active learning in a
physiology laboratory-based subject facilitated by an e-learning component
Advan Physiol Edu 32:65–75.
Dobson JL. 2008. The use of formative online quizzes to enhance class preparation and scores on summative exams. Adv Physiol Educ 32:297–302.
Ernst H, Colthorpe K. 2007. The efficacy of interactive lecturing for students
with diverse science backgrounds. Adv Physiol Educ 31:41–44.
Minasian-Batmanian L, Lingard J, Prosser M. 2005. Differences in students’
perceptions of learning compulsory foundation biochemistry in the health sciences professions. Adv Health Sci Educ 10:279–290.
Nasmith L, Steinert Y. 2001. The evaluation of a workshop to promote interactive lecturing. Teach Learn Med 13:43–48.
Philip CT, Unruh KP, Lachman N, Pawlina W. 2008. An explorative learning
approach to teaching clinical anatomy using student generated content. Anat
Sci Educ 1:106–110.
Prince M. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng
Educ 93:223–231.
Rao SP, DiCarlo SE. 2000. Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes.
Adv Physiol Educ 24:51–55.
Sander P, Stevenson K, King M, Coates D. 2000. University students’ expectations of teaching. Stud High Educ 25:309–323.
Sheader EA, Speake T, Pocock T, Gouldsborough I. 2008. Introduction of
‘‘active sessions’’ into the multi-focussed approach to teaching physiology to
students lacking a science background. In: Proceedings of the Physiological Society Scientific Meeting, Cambridge, United Kingdom, July 14–16, Abstract
PC52. London, United Kingdom:The Physiological Society.
Vasan SW, DeFouw DO, Holland BK. 2008. Modified use of team-based learning for effective delivery of medical gross anatomy and embryology. Anat Sci
Educ 1:3–9.
Weir KA. 2008. Thinking outside the (voice) box: A case study of students’
perceptions of the relevance of anatomy to speech pathology. Anat Sci Educ
1:166–174.
45
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
5
Размер файла
134 Кб
Теги
123, ase
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа