Premium
Comparison of the “Histo!” app with traditional histology study guides
Author(s) -
Moore Kathryn,
Colombo John,
Ash Rick,
Scott Sheryl
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.444.23
Subject(s) - virtual microscopy , test (biology) , medical education , multimedia , histology , computer science , psychology , medicine , pathology , paleontology , biology
Objectives “Histo!”, an iPad application, was developed by histology faculty at the University of Utah (UU) in response to student requests for a histology learning tool. The intent was to provide a self‐directed learning app for medical and dental students using high‐quality histological images from the UU histology slide collection. Histo! was designed to complement other teaching methods and facilitate initial learning, review, and self‐testing of course material. Content includes structural and functional questions, incorporating learning, quiz, and test modes. Many students use Histo! as their main study tool. Although there are many basic science educational apps available and several histology apps, few have been validated and tested for dental students. Methods In this pilot study, we assessed the educational value of Histo!, specifically whether the app functions better as a tool for learning, review, or both. 48 first‐year dental students took a pre‐test assessing their baseline histological knowledge of different body systems. Students were randomly sorted into groups and for the week preceding each lab each group of students prepared by using either the Histo! app or provided lab study guides, containing the same content. Before each lab, students retook the topic test. Group scores were compared using Student's T‐test. Groups were assessed on four different topics, with preparation of two topics using Histo! and the other two using study guides. At the end of the study, a qualitative survey was given to students to assess their usage and learning preferences regarding the Histo! App vs. traditional study guides. Results Comparison of group scores on the post‐tests showed a 2‐fold improvement in scores, irrespective of study method. There were no statistically significant differences in group performance (p= 0.24), though the Histo! group scores trended slightly higher. Students were surveyed on their usage of Histo! throughout the course, comparing the two modes for initial learning and as an exam review tool. In addition, students gave feedback on their sense of preparation, satisfaction and engagement with the app. Final results from the qualitative student experience survey are still pending. Conclusions Preliminary results suggest that Histo! is as effective as study guides, at least for initial learning. Students found the app to be engaging and less time consuming than traditional study methods, and preferred spending study time on the app as opposed to using the traditional study guides. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .