Premium
Using Deep Thought Processing for Better Learning Outcomes on Human Cadavers: A Pilot Study
Author(s) -
Gribbin Mary
Publication year - 2015
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.29.1_supplement.689.9
Subject(s) - test (biology) , gross anatomy , psychology , mathematics education , medicine , pathology , biology , ecology
According to Chew (2014) applying deep thought processing questions as opposed to shallow learning strategy questions is more likely to lead to successful learning outcomes at the undergraduate level. Hypothesizing that the differences would be similar at the Masters level, a cohort of Human Gross Anatomy students was tested by using both cognitively active type questions and cognitively passive type questions. Methods Adopting a quasi‐experimental approach with non‐equivalent groups, we took 22 students and split them into two tutorial groups. Group One attended Gross lab for six hours a week and attended a one hour tutorial involving both active and passive questions. Group Two followed the same regimen, and was given only shallow learning type questions. Both groups took a mid‐term Lab Practical exam. For the second four weeks, the procedure was reversed for each group, and then a final exam was administered. Both tests measured similar categories of knowledge. Results/Conclusions The results confirmed our expectations. Group 1(7 students), scored 19% higher than the students of Group 2 who received shallow type processing questions. Group 1 had a Final exam average of 81.20%, (2% lower) and Group 2 had a Final exam avg. of 70.15% ( 6% higher) on a one‐tailed Paired t‐Test, p<.05, results similar to those found by Stranger‐Hall (2014). In conclusion, the use of deep thought processing type questions as well as surface processing questions for the Study of Human Gross Anatomy seems to improve learning outcomes significantly and may be useful as a tool to increase long term memory and mastery of the subject.. The outcomes and the limitations of our method indicate that further refinement would occur with the administration of pre‐and post‐testing and by using randomized groups in a similar experiment.