ArticlePloS one2024
The application of flipped learning to a gross anatomy dissection course.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We implemented flipped learning for a gross anatomy dissection course and compared its effects on students' motivation and academic achievement with those of traditional dissection methods. We invited 142 first-year medical students at Chonnam National University Medical School to participate in this study. All participants engaged in traditional dissection methods in the first part of the study and flipped learning in the latter part. Medical students' motivation to learn anatomy by cadaveric dissection was measured using the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) model. Thereafter, all students completed a written examination consisting of 96 multiple-choice questions. The students' mean motivational score regarding attention was significantly higher in association with flipped learning than with traditional learning. However, the students' mean motivational scores regarding relevance, confidence, and satisfaction were not significantly different between the methods. Additionally, the mean anatomy practice test score was significantly higher in association with flipped learning than with traditional learning. The students' motivational scores and anatomy practice test scores associated with flipped learning positively correlated with the extent of learning material completion. The students' responses indicated that flipped learning helped enhance the learning process, improve time management, reduce confusion during practice, and promote independent practice. The application of flipped learning to a cadaveric dissection course increased individual learning motivation, which improved learning activities both in and out of class, as well as academic achievement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.