using a simulator of the human body (hbi ). its impact on learning anatomy in high school

Using a simulator of the human body (HBI).

Using a simulator of the human body (HBI). Its impact on learning anatomy in high school students. Stratification by sex and learning style.

Margarita Dolores E. Rosas-Munive 1

Verónica Hoyos Aguilar 2

Ignacio Mora-Magaña 3

1-UNAM / GDF; 2 UPN; 3 Inst. Nacional de Pediatría.

The information technology and communication is not panacea, does not make magic, and it can improve the life of all inhabitants on the planet.

Kofi Annan - 2003

Digital technology in classroom has made changesin the school.

Tools based in Web encourage experimentation, reflection and knowledge generation, favors the formation of a cyberspace, which creativity helps to create an environment that can give, in a natural way, collaborative learning

When teacher is in the classroom many thingscan happen.

Many variables fit together at the same time to make education from teacher, through

classroom, chalk, blackboard and then,

web, computer, software

learning occurs in students

Variables of

Individuals

Learning Variables

Instrumental and MethodologyVariables

Contextual and Environmental

Variables

HardwareMindware Software

1.- Previous knowledge, is needed for develop new knowledge

2.- There are different styles, and there is different learning

3.- Technology and education

In order to make an efficient process of teaching-learning, some issues are needed: (Nº 1)

In order to make an efficient process of teaching-learning, some issues are needed: (Nº 2)

6.- HBI simulator in Human Anatomy teaching

5.- Game and Learning, somewhat relevant4.- Learning with digital technology

Page of the site from BBC dedicated toSciences, body and human mind

Observe:It is in spanish !(Our students are Spanishspeakers)

Options in BBC Science’s site.

Many in gameor challengemode

Human Shape in Anatomic PositionPut organ in its right place

At the end of thechallenge, organs appear where they were placed and thescore obtained.

User can choose one of this options

First Screen in Moodle Platform

Anatomy and Physiology for Health Education Group: 5040

Anatomy and Physiology for Health EducationGroup: 5030

Research Question

2.- Which learning style has a better performancewith HBI simulator VS. HBI simulator plus teacherin High School students VS. teacher alone?

1.- How much learning improves in High School students using HBI simulator VS. HBI simulator plus teacher VS. teacher alone?

It was an experimental design, with a randomized allocation of intervention.

It was reviewed and approved by an Ethics and Research Committee

Only those who met inclusion criteriawere enrolled.

From 5 groups, 3 were selected.

It was made as follows: In a cup, there were placed slips of paper with the number of each group:

“5010” “5020” “5030” “5040” “5050” In other cup, were placed 5 slips of paper with this: “control” “simulator” “simulator+teacher” “blank” “blank”there were chosen the 3 that took a slip of paperwith intervention or control, or no participate.

In all groups it was the same teacher.

Female Physician.20 years in High School teaching and Teacher of Anatomy in School of Medicine in UNAM (National Autonomous University of México)

Methodology:

Classes were as follows:Conference with .ppt show, anatomic models,summaries made by students, crosswords, puzzles, etc. plus intervention

Methodology:

Basal Test(Pre-test)Anatomy Knowledge

Intervention:

Teacher aloneHBI Simulator

HBI Simulator+Teacher

Test(Post-test)Anatomy KnowledgeLearning Styles

Age by Sex and by Groups. There is no difference between Groups.

InterventionPre-test results. T-Test. Post-test results. T-Test.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Students 24 / 16 w 24 / 10 w 25 / 11 w 24 / 16 w 24 / 10 w 25 / 11 w

Media ± S. Dev 4.79±0.88 4.14±2.35 6.25±2.66 11.79±2.75 10.09±3.35 9.48±2.55

p (C I 95%) 0.23 (-0.441; 1.752) 0.64 (-0.105; 3.515)

p (C I 95%) 0.005 (-3.529; -0.653) 0.487 (-1.142; 2.356)

p (C I 95%) 0.013 (-2.537;-0.334) 0.044 (0.785;

3.838)

w=Women; S. Dev.= Standard Deviation; p=p value; C. I. = Confidence Interval.

Cells in same color mean contrast between they both

Between Groups, there was a differencein Pre-test as in Post-test

Pre-test Post-test results. T related-Test.

Intervention Global Group 1 Group 2 Group 3Students 73 / 37 w 24 / 16 w 24 / 10 w 25 / 11 w

Pre-Test

Media ± Std Dev5.05

± 1.0694.79

± 0.884.14

± 2.356.25

± 2.66 p

(C I 95%)0.000(-4.193; -3.232 )

0.000(-5.441; -3.892)

0.000(-4.723; -

3.110)

0.000(-3.399; -

1.801)

Post-Test Media ± Std Dev

10.45± 1.197

11.79± 2.750

10.09± 3.35

9.48± 2.55

Gain Test - Retest

5.4 7.0 5.95 3.25

w=Women; Std. Dev.= Standard Deviation; ; p=p value; C. I. = Confidence Interval. Cells in same color mean contrast between they both

Students improve from Pre-test to Post-test.Related t-test, shows significative difference.

In the last row it is possible to see how the studentsimprove their performance, in all arms of this trial.

p(C I 95%)

0.000(-4.193; -3.232 )

0.000(-5.441; -3.892)

0.000(-4.723; -

3.110)

0.000(-3.399; -

1.801)

Worse students in Pre-test, improve morethan those who have better results in pre-test.

Whatch “heavy” lines

Pre Test Post Test0

Using a simulator of the human body (HBI). M

Using a simulator of the human body (HBI). Learning Styles by Group.

Grupo 1 Grupo 2 Grupo 30

PragmáticoTeóricoReflexivoActivo

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

PragmaticTheoricReflexiveActive

Pre-Test / Post-Test by Group and by SexPre-Test Post- Test

Men Women Men Women

Group 5010

4.75 3.25 6.8 4.81 5.2 5.5 Media 9.25 8.3 10.0 13.0 12.4 8.7

5.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 Median 9.5 8.0 10.5 13.0 13.0 8.0

0.70 2.26 2.51 0.98 2.09 2.06 Std. Dev. 2.81 3.1 2.4 1.65 2.01 2.64

4.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Min 6.0 4.0 5.0 10.0 9.0 4.0

6.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Max 13.0 14.0 14.0 16.0 15 13.0

Pre-Test / Post-Test by Group and by SexMen Women

Pre Pos Pre Pos Pre Pos Pre Pos Pre Pos Pre Pos

5010 5030 5040 Group 5010 5030 5040

4.75 9.25 3.25 8.3 6.8 10.0 Media 4.81 13.0 5.2 12.4 5.5 8.7

5.0 9.5 3.0 8.0 6.0 10.5 Median 5.0 13.0 5.5 13.0 5.5 8.0

0.70 2.81 2.26 3.1 2.51 2.4 Std. Dev. 0.98 1.65 2.09 2.01 2.06 2.64

4.0 6.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Min 3.0 10.0 2.0 9.0 2.0 4.0

6.0 13.0 7.0 14.0 11.0 14.0 Max 7.0 16.0 8.0 15 9.0 13.0

4.5 5.3 3.2 Dif-Med 8.19 7.2 3.2

4.5 5.0 4.5 Dif-Mdn 8.0 7.5 2.5

Results pretest/postest by group and sex.

HombresMujeres

Pragmatic

Theoric

Reflexive

Active

Pragmatic

Theoric

Reflexive

Active

Group 5010Sex

Men Women

Pragmatic

Theoric

Reflexive

Active

Group 5030Sex

Men Women

Pragmatic

Theoric

Reflexive

Active

Pragmatic

Theoric

Reflexive

Active

Group 5040Sex

Men Women

Pragmatic

Theoric

Reflexive

Active

Mean Dif 4.65 2.88

3.0 5.00

Results by Learning Styles in Men, Pre – Post Test

Pre- Test Post-Test

Active Reflexive Theoric Pragmatic Active Reflexive Theoric Pragmatic

4.43 5.88 8.00 4.49 Media 9.08 8.68 11.00 9.49

4.99 4.99 8.00 4.49 Median 8.99 8.49 11.00 10.49

2.24 3.08 4.24 1.34 Std. Dev 2.83 2.70 0.0 3.04

1.00 1.00 5.28 2.00 Min 5.00 4.00 11.00 4.00

6.88 10.88 10.88 5.92 Max 14.0 13.00 11.00 13.00

Mean Dif 5.41 6.67

6.23 7.46

Results by Learning Styles in Women, Pre – Post Test

Pre- Test Post-Test

Active Reflexive Theoric Pragmatic Active Reflexive Theoric Pragmatic

5.88 4.43 5.48 4.54 Media 11.29 11.10 11.71 12.00

6.0 4.99 4.99 4.00 Median 12.00 12.00 11.71 12.99

1.18 1.32 1.76 1.80 Std. Dev 3.18 3.50 2.41 2.17

4.0 1.92 4.0 2.0 Min 4.00 6.00 8.00 9.00

8.00 5.92 9.00 7.00 Max 15.00 16.00 15.00 15.00

Global Group 5010

Group 5030 Group 5040

Active

Reflexive

Theoric

Pragmatic 03691215

Active

Reflexive

Theoric

Pragmatic 03691215

Active

Reflexive

Theoric

Pragmatic 03691215

Active

Reflexive

Theoric

Pragmatic 03691215

Learning Styles by Group

Students’ survey:How relevant is use of technologies in classroom? (just a sample from all participants)

Is for:Learning more

10Get more information

7Improve communication 3

Easy, effective 2

Equitable 1

Useful for understanding 1Funny

2Not necessary

1Not all is true

Students’ survey:How useful is technologies in classroom? (just a sample from all participants)

Is for:

Research 12Learn

11Solve homework

10Solve questions

4Socialize

Using a simulator of the human body (HBI). Active

Reflexive

Theoric

Pragmatic 0

Health Areas

No Health Areas

Graph from Mora et al 2014 (in press):Learning Styles from research in medical students, dental students, nurses, informatic, bussines, etc. Health is related to Reflexive and Theoric Learning Style.

Observations:

Gender and Learning Styles are close related

In our sample men performance was as reported,but women does not.

Teacher, in this kind of subject, has a relevant rolebuilding knowledge in students.

There are many variables in teaching-learning process.Sometimes one alone, does not explain results.

In our study, two unexpected variables affect results of intervention:

Gender and Learning Styles

Digital technologies are useful as a teaching tool, butalone, does not function as well as guided by teacher.

In future we need to work on this research lines:

a) technologies and learning stylesb) technologies and gender c) technologies and new gadgets in classroomd) technologies and webe) other software (not HBI)f) other enviroments

The End

using a simulator of the human body (hbi ). its impact on learning anatomy in high school

human body hbi

human mind rosashoyos

human shape

human anatomy teaching5

learning anatomy

learning style

digital technologyrosashoyos

vernica hoyos aguilar

Documents

hbi complete product guide 2017 -...

issues and trends in hbi ch 14

report labor market construction the hbi

essar hbi, dri plants

ima hbi nabh initiative

issues and trends in hbi ch 9

hbi construction labor market report1

hbi c hbi e hbi wt / wts

hbi 2013-14 for ucdl(part-i)

hbi investor presentation may 2021 final - hanesbrands inc

tul505 lang and culture hbi edited - urbanleaders.org...

about cinema advertising and hbi 2011 rl

hbi marketing portfolio

evb-lan9252-hbi user's guide - rs...

hbi 2013 14 ucdl proformas (part ii)

hanesbrands inc. (hbi) assessment for reaccreditation ·...

issues and trends in hbi ch 3

v2, 03/2017 the hamburg burnout inventory (hbi)

hbia what is hbi

hbi pact for veterans”hbi pact for veterans-jacksonville...