Active learning strategies, such as analogical models, aid in student learning of spinal anatomy and biomechanics.

IF 0.7 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jacqueline Rix
{"title":"Active learning strategies, such as analogical models, aid in student learning of spinal anatomy and biomechanics.","authors":"Jacqueline Rix","doi":"10.7899/JCE-18-25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to examine the effect of active learning strategies using analogical models versus didactic lectures on student learning of spinal anatomy and biomechanics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Students enrolled into year 1 of a chiropractic program in 2014 and 2015 were eligible to participate. The 2014 cohort received didactic lectures. Active learning approaches using analogical models were incorporated into the 2015 cohort. Both groups received an identical written assessment at the end of the 3rd lecture. Between-group differences in age and written assessment percentages were analyzed using independent t tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-nine students from the 2014 cohort and 62 students from the 2015 cohort took part. There were no significant differences in age or gender between the cohorts. The differences in the mean of the written assessment percentages between the didactic group and the analogical models group were significant (p = .00), with a mean difference of 22.6% (95% CI, 17.4-27.9). The didactic group mean percentage was 37.9% (SD 15.8) and was within a fail percentage bracket. The analogical models group mean percentage was 60.6% (SD 13.1) and within a pass percentage bracket.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The analogical models group performed significantly better than the didactic lecture group, particularly with regard to content delivered using literal or surface analogies.</p>","PeriodicalId":44516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","volume":"35 1","pages":"65-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7958669/pdf/i1042-5055-35-1-65.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-18-25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to examine the effect of active learning strategies using analogical models versus didactic lectures on student learning of spinal anatomy and biomechanics.

Methods: Students enrolled into year 1 of a chiropractic program in 2014 and 2015 were eligible to participate. The 2014 cohort received didactic lectures. Active learning approaches using analogical models were incorporated into the 2015 cohort. Both groups received an identical written assessment at the end of the 3rd lecture. Between-group differences in age and written assessment percentages were analyzed using independent t tests.

Results: Fifty-nine students from the 2014 cohort and 62 students from the 2015 cohort took part. There were no significant differences in age or gender between the cohorts. The differences in the mean of the written assessment percentages between the didactic group and the analogical models group were significant (p = .00), with a mean difference of 22.6% (95% CI, 17.4-27.9). The didactic group mean percentage was 37.9% (SD 15.8) and was within a fail percentage bracket. The analogical models group mean percentage was 60.6% (SD 13.1) and within a pass percentage bracket.

Conclusion: The analogical models group performed significantly better than the didactic lecture group, particularly with regard to content delivered using literal or surface analogies.

主动学习策略,如类比模型,有助于学生学习脊柱解剖和生物力学。
目的:本研究旨在探讨主动学习策略对学生脊柱解剖和生物力学学习的影响。方法:2014年和2015年入读脊椎指压治疗项目一年级的学生均有参与资格。2014年的学员接受了说教式讲座。使用类比模型的主动学习方法被纳入2015年的队列。在第三节课结束时,两组学生都收到了一份相同的书面评估。使用独立t检验分析年龄和书面评估百分比的组间差异。结果:来自2014年队列的59名学生和来自2015年队列的62名学生参加了研究。在年龄组中,年龄和性别没有显著差异。教学组和类比模型组的书面评估百分比的平均值差异有统计学意义(p = .00),平均差异为22.6% (95% CI, 17.4-27.9)。说教组平均百分比为37.9% (SD 15.8),在失败百分比范围内。类比模型组平均百分比为60.6% (SD 13.1),在合格百分比范围内。结论:类比模型组的表现明显优于说教组,特别是在使用字面或表面类比的内容方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Chiropractic Education
Journal of Chiropractic Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
37.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chiropractic Education is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing research and scholarly articles pertaining to education theory, pedagogy, methodologies, practice, and other content relevant to the health professions academe. Journal contents are of interest to teachers, researchers, clinical educators, administrators, and students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信