脊骨神经医学技术课程中增强现实笔记与传统纸质笔记在学习记忆和体验方面的差异:一项随机试验。

IF 0.7 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Chiropractic Education Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.7899/JCE-21-33
Alice E Cade, Kirk Stevens, Alan Lee, Lisa Baptista
{"title":"脊骨神经医学技术课程中增强现实笔记与传统纸质笔记在学习记忆和体验方面的差异:一项随机试验。","authors":"Alice E Cade, Kirk Stevens, Alan Lee, Lisa Baptista","doi":"10.7899/JCE-21-33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate if a written guide or augmented reality (AR) guide improves free recall of diversified chiropractic adjusting technique and to capture participants' impressions of the study in a poststudy questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-eight chiropractic students were evaluated for diversified listing (a nomenclature denoting vertebral malposition and correction) recall, pre-AR and post-AR, or written guide review. The vertebral segments used were C7 and T6. Two randomized groups reviewed an original course written guide (n = 18) or a new AR guide (n = 20). A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (C7) and t test (T6) compared group differences in reevaluation scores. A poststudy questionnaire was given to capture participants' impressions of the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups showed no significant differences in free recall scores after reviewing the guides for C7 or T6. The poststudy questionnaire suggested a number of strategies could be used to improve current teaching material such as more detail in the written guides and organizing content into smaller blocks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Use of an AR or written guide does not seem to change participants' free recall ability when used to review diversified technique listings. The poststudy questionnaire was useful to identify strategies to improve currently used teaching material.</p>","PeriodicalId":44516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11095645/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in learning retention and experience of augmented reality notes compared to traditional paper notes in a chiropractic technique course: A randomized trial.\",\"authors\":\"Alice E Cade, Kirk Stevens, Alan Lee, Lisa Baptista\",\"doi\":\"10.7899/JCE-21-33\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate if a written guide or augmented reality (AR) guide improves free recall of diversified chiropractic adjusting technique and to capture participants' impressions of the study in a poststudy questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-eight chiropractic students were evaluated for diversified listing (a nomenclature denoting vertebral malposition and correction) recall, pre-AR and post-AR, or written guide review. The vertebral segments used were C7 and T6. Two randomized groups reviewed an original course written guide (n = 18) or a new AR guide (n = 20). A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (C7) and t test (T6) compared group differences in reevaluation scores. A poststudy questionnaire was given to capture participants' impressions of the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups showed no significant differences in free recall scores after reviewing the guides for C7 or T6. The poststudy questionnaire suggested a number of strategies could be used to improve current teaching material such as more detail in the written guides and organizing content into smaller blocks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Use of an AR or written guide does not seem to change participants' free recall ability when used to review diversified technique listings. The poststudy questionnaire was useful to identify strategies to improve currently used teaching material.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Chiropractic Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11095645/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Chiropractic Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-21-33\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-21-33","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:调查书面指南或增强现实(AR)指南是否能提高对多样化脊骨神经医学调整技术的自由回忆,并在研究后问卷中捕捉参与者对该研究的印象。方法:对38名脊骨神经医学学生进行多样化列表(一种表示脊椎错位和矫正的术语)回忆、AR前和AR后或书面指南回顾评估。使用的脊椎节段为C7和T6。两个随机分组回顾了原始课程书面指南(n=18)或新的AR指南(n=20)。Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney(C7)和t检验(T6)比较了重新评估分数的组间差异。研究结束后进行了问卷调查,以获取参与者对研究的印象。结果:两组在复习C7或T6指南后,自由回忆得分没有显著差异。研究后问卷表明,可以使用一些策略来改进现有的教学材料,例如在书面指南中更详细地介绍内容,并将内容组织成更小的块。结论:使用AR或书面指南似乎不会改变参与者在审查多样化技术清单时的自由回忆能力。研究后问卷有助于确定改进当前使用的教材的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Differences in learning retention and experience of augmented reality notes compared to traditional paper notes in a chiropractic technique course: A randomized trial.

Objective: To investigate if a written guide or augmented reality (AR) guide improves free recall of diversified chiropractic adjusting technique and to capture participants' impressions of the study in a poststudy questionnaire.

Methods: Thirty-eight chiropractic students were evaluated for diversified listing (a nomenclature denoting vertebral malposition and correction) recall, pre-AR and post-AR, or written guide review. The vertebral segments used were C7 and T6. Two randomized groups reviewed an original course written guide (n = 18) or a new AR guide (n = 20). A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (C7) and t test (T6) compared group differences in reevaluation scores. A poststudy questionnaire was given to capture participants' impressions of the study.

Results: Both groups showed no significant differences in free recall scores after reviewing the guides for C7 or T6. The poststudy questionnaire suggested a number of strategies could be used to improve current teaching material such as more detail in the written guides and organizing content into smaller blocks.

Conclusion: Use of an AR or written guide does not seem to change participants' free recall ability when used to review diversified technique listings. The poststudy questionnaire was useful to identify strategies to improve currently used teaching material.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Chiropractic Education
Journal of Chiropractic Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
37.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chiropractic Education is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing research and scholarly articles pertaining to education theory, pedagogy, methodologies, practice, and other content relevant to the health professions academe. Journal contents are of interest to teachers, researchers, clinical educators, administrators, and students.
期刊最新文献
Patient satisfaction with clinical services provided by chiropractic students under supervision compared to licensed chiropractors: An observational study. Development of a new examination for the Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board. Improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in chiropractic education and profession: Report from three 2020-2021 summit meetings. Compliance with evidence-based radiographic imaging guidelines by chiropractic interns at a chiropractic training program. Comparison of mistakes on multiple-choice question and fill-in-the-blank examinations: A retrospective analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1