↓ Skip to main content

Distance learning ects and flipped classroom in the anatomy learning: comparative study of the use of augmented reality, video and notes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
463 Mendeley
Title
Distance learning ects and flipped classroom in the anatomy learning: comparative study of the use of augmented reality, video and notes
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0757-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Javier Ferrer-Torregrosa, Miguel Ángel Jiménez-Rodríguez, Javier Torralba-Estelles, Fernanda Garzón-Farinós, Marcelo Pérez-Bermejo, Nadia Fernández-Ehrling

Abstract

The establishment of the ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) is one of the pillars of the European Space of Higher Education. This way of accounting for the time spent in training has two essential parts, classroom teaching (work with the professor) and distance learning (work without the professor, whether in an individual or collective way). Much has been published on the distance learning part, but less on the classroom teaching section. In this work, the authors investigate didactic strategies and associated aids for distance learning work in a concept based on flipped classroom where transmitting information is carried out with aids that the professor prepares, so that the student works in an independent way before the classes, thus being able to dedicate the classroom teaching time to more complex learning and being able to count on the professor's help. Three teaching aids applied to the study of anatomy have been compared: Notes with images, videos, and augmented reality. Four dimensions have been compared: the time spent, the acquired learnings, the metacognitive perception, and the prospects of the use of augmented reality for study. The results show the effectiveness, in all aspects, of augmented reality when compared with the rest of aids. The questionnaire assessed the acquired knowledge through a course exam, where 5.60 points were obtained for the notes group, 6.54 for the video group, and 7.19 for the augmented reality group. That is 0.94 more points for the video group compared with the notes and 1.59 more points for the augmented reality group compared with the notes group. This research demonstrates that, although technology has not been sufficiently developed for education, it is expected that it can be improved in both the autonomous work of the student and the academic training of health science students and that we can teach how to learn. Moreover, one can see how the grades of the students who studied with augmented reality are more grouped and that there is less dispersion in the marks compared with other materials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 463 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Unknown 461 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 11%
Student > Bachelor 42 9%
Lecturer 38 8%
Researcher 38 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 8%
Other 113 24%
Unknown 146 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 16%
Social Sciences 53 11%
Computer Science 33 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 6%
Engineering 16 3%
Other 97 21%
Unknown 162 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,457,417
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,271
of 3,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,036
of 337,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#50
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.