The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Analysis of traditional versus three‐dimensional augmented curriculum on anatomical learning outcome measures
Abstract
This study examined whether student learning outcome measures are influenced by the addition of three‐dimensional and digital teaching tools to a traditional dissection and lecture learning format curricula. The study was performed in a semester long graduate level course that incorporated both gross anatomy and neuroanatomy curricula. Methods compared student examination performance on material taught using lecture and cadaveric dissection teaching tools alone or lecture and cadaveric dissection augmented with computerized three‐dimensional teaching tools. Additional analyses were performed to examine potential correlations between question difficulty and format, previous student performance (i.e., undergraduate grade point average), and a student perception survey. The results indicated that students performed better on material in which three–dimensional (3D) technologies are utilized in conjunction with lecture and dissection methodologies. The improvement in performance was observed across the student population primarily on laboratory examinations. Although, student performance was increased, students did not perceive that the use of the additional 3D technology significantly influenced their learning. The results indicate that the addition of 3D learning tools can influence long‐term retention of gross anatomy material and should be considered as a beneficial supplement for anatomy courses. Anat Sci Educ 9: 529–536. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Iwanaga, J., Loukas, M., Dumont, A. S., & Tubbs, R. S. (2021) · Clinical Anatomy · doi:10.1002/ca.23655 · Cited by 328
Ryan, G. V., Callaghan, S., Rafferty, A., Higgins, M. F., Mangina, E., & McAuliffe, F. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/30082 · Cited by 242
“Educational technology is changing the way in which we learn today, and its purpose is to ultimately improve education [1,2].”
Virtual reality in midwifery education: a mixed methods study to assess learning and understanding
Ryan, G., Callaghan, S., Rafferty, A., Murphy, J., Higgins, M., Barry, T., Mangina, E., Carroll, L., & McAuliffe, F. (2022) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105573 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Peterson, D. C., & Mlynarczyk, G. S. A.
- Venue
- Anatomical Sciences Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-04-14
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 529-536
- ISSN
- 1935-9772 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-9780
- OpenAlex
- W2345403589
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analysis of traditional versus three‐dimensional augmented curriculum on anatomical learning outcome measures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ase.1612
- The paper
- Peterson, D. C., & Mlynarczyk, G. S. A. (2016). Analysis of traditional versus three‐dimensional augmented curriculum on anatomical learning outcome measures. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1612
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.