2,494
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Development and evaluation of an online integrative histology module: simple design, low-cost, and improves pathology self-efficacy

, , , & ORCID Icon
Article: 2011692 | Received 21 Aug 2020, Accepted 24 Nov 2021, Published online: 14 Dec 2021

References

  • Bandaranayake RC. Integrated learning. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, and Hunt D, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. 5th ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Elsevier; 2017. pp. 122–13.
  • Serrat MA, Dom AM, Buchanan JT, et al. Independent learning modules enhance student performance and understanding of anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7(5): pp. 406–416.
  • Ogino S, King EE, Beck AH, et al. Interdisciplinary education to integrate pathology and epidemiology: towards molecular and population-level health science. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(8): pp. 659–667.
  • Irby DM, Cooke M, O’Brien BC. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med. 2010;85(2): pp. 220–227.
  • Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Functions and Structure of a Medical School: standards for Accreditation of Medical Education Programs Leading to the MD Degree. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges and American Medical Association; 2019.
  • AlSaggaf S, Ali SS, Ayuob NN, et al. A model of horizontal and vertical integration of teaching on the cadaveric heart. Ann Anat. 2010;192(6): pp. 373–377.
  • Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Med Teach. 2015;37(4): pp. 312–322.
  • Knowles MS. The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Cambridge Books; 1980.
  • Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Teaching and learning in medical education: how theory can inform practice. In: Swanwick T, editor. Understanding Medical Education: evidence, Theory and Practice. 1st ed. Chichester (WX): Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. pp. 16–36.
  • Lisk K, Agur AMR, Woods NN. Exploring cognitive integration of basic science and its effect on diagnostic reasoning in novices. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5: pp. 147–153.
  • Kulasegaram KM, Martimianakis MA, Mylopoulos M, et al. Cognition before curriculum: rethinking the integration of basic science and clinical learning. Acad Med. 2013;88(10): pp. 1578–1585.
  • Woods NN. Science is fundamental: the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2007;41: pp. 1173–1177.
  • Thompson AR, Lowrie DJ. An evaluation of outcomes following the replacement of traditional histology laboratories with self-study modules. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(3): pp. 276–285.
  • Harden RM. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Educ. 2000;34: pp. 551–557.
  • Nivala M, Lehtinen E, Helle L, et al. Histological knowledge as a predictor of medical students’ performance in diagnostic pathology. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(6): pp. 361–367.
  • Pickering JD, Swinnerton BJ. Exploring the dimensions of medical student engagement with technology-enhanced learning resources and assessing the impact on assessment outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12(2): pp. 117–128.
  • Sandars J, Morrison C. What is the Net Generation? The challenge for future medical education. Med Teach. 2009;29(2–3): pp. 85–88.
  • Mione S, Valcke M, Cornelissen M. Evaluation of virtual microscopy in medical histology teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(5): pp. 307–315.
  • Khalil MK, Nelson LD, Kibble JD. The use of self-learning modules to facilitate learning of basic science concepts in an integrated medical curriculum. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(5): pp. 219–226.
  • Mayer RE, Moreno R. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol. 2003;38(1): pp. 43–52.
  • Hamilton PW, Wang Y, McCullough SJ. Virtual microscopy and digital pathology in training and education. APMIS. 2012;120(4): pp. 305–315.
  • Dee FR. Virtual microscopy in pathology education. Hum Pathol. 2009;40(8): pp. 1112–1121.
  • Wilson AB, Taylor MA, Klein BA, et al. Meta-analysis and review of learner performance and preference: virtual versus optical microscopy. Med Educ. 2016;50(4): pp. 428–440.
  • Pinder KE, Ford JC, Ovalle WK. A new paradigm for teaching histology laboratories in Canada’s first distributed medical school. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(3): pp. 95–101.
  • Jenkins S, Goel R, Morrell DS. Computer-assisted instruction versus traditional lecture for medical student teaching of dermatology morphology: a randomized control trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59(2): pp. 255–259.
  • Barbeau ML, Johnson M, Gibson C, et al. The development and assessment of an online microscopic anatomy laboratory course. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(4): pp. 246–256.
  • Velan GM, Killen MT, Dziegielewski M, et al. Development and evaluation of a computer-assisted learning module on glomerulonephritis for medical students. Med Teach. 2002;24(4): pp. 412–416.
  • Lei L, Winn W, Scott C, et al. Evaluation of computer-assisted instruction in histology: effect of interaction on learning outcome. Anat Rec - Part B New Anat. 2005;284B(1): pp. 28–34.
  • Ariana A, Amin M, Pakneshan S, et al. Integration of traditional and e-learning methods to improve learning outcomes for dental students in histopathology. J Dent Educ. 2016;80(9): pp. 1140–1148.
  • Wood R, Bandura A. Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;56(3): pp. 407–415.
  • VMD. Virtual Microscopy Database. Bethesda (MD): American Association of Anatomists; 2020. http://www.virtualmicroscopydatabase.org
  • VS. Virtual Slidebox. London: The University of Western Ontario; 2020. http://slides.uwo.ca/
  • Thompson AR, O’Loughlin VD. The Blooming Anatomy Tool (BAT): a discipline-specific rubric for utilizing Bloom’s Taxonomy in the design and evaluation of assessments in the anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8: pp. 493–501.
  • Chen G, Gully SM, Eden D. Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organ Res Methods. 2001;4(1): pp. 62–83.
  • Yeo GB, Neal A. An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91(5): pp. 1088–1101.
  • Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48: pp. 1273–1296.
  • Rosas C, Rubí R, Donoso M, et al. Dental students’ evaluations of an interactive histology software. J Dent Educ. 2012;76(11): pp. 1491–1496.
  • Klassen RM, Klassen JRL. Self-efficacy beliefs of medical students: a critical review. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7: pp. 76–82.
  • Lisbona A, Palaci F, Salanova M, et al. The effects of work engagement and self-efficacy on personal initiative and performance. Psicothema. 2018;30(1): pp. 89–96.
  • Burgoon JM, Meece JL, Granger NA. Self-efficacy’s influence on student academic achievement in the medical anatomy curriculum. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5: pp. 249–255.
  • Demirören M, Turan S, Öztuna D. Medical students’ self-efficacy in problem-based learning and its relationship with self-regulated learning. Med Educ Online. 2016;21. DOI:10.3402/meo.v21.30049.
  • Loyens SMM, Magda J, Rikers RMJP. Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol Rev. 2008;20: pp. 411–427.
  • Lee SH, Jeon WT. The relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic burnout in medical students. Korean J Med Educ. 2015;27(1): pp. 27–35.
  • Yu JH, Chae SJ, Chang KH. The relationship among self-efficacy, perfectionism and academic burnout in medical school students. Korean J Med Educ. 2016;28(1): pp. 49–55.
  • Pather N, Blyth P, Chapman JA, et al. Forced disruption of anatomy education in Australia and New Zealand: an acute response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;0: pp. 1–14.
  • Flaherty K. Free online anatomy resources; 2021. Available from: cited 2021 Jun 9. https://sites.google.com/view/anatomy-resources/home.
  • AAA. Anatomy Education Resources. Bethesda (MD): American Association of Anatomists; 2020. https://www.anatomy.org/AAA/Resources/Anatomy-Education-Resources/AAA/Resources/Anatomy-Education-Resources.aspx?hkey=16e2098e-2430-4c6e-9e17-1245bac02bf1
  • Wu H, Li S, Zheng J, et al. Medical students’ motivation and academic performance: the mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning engagement. Med Educ Online. 2020;25. DOI:10.1080/10872981.2020.1742964.
  • Mavis B. Self-efficacy and OSCE performance among second year medical students. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2001;6: pp. 93–102.
  • Choi N. Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance. Psychol Sch. 2005;42(2): pp. 197–205.
  • Mafla AC, Divaris K, Herrera-López HM, et al. Self-efficacy and academic performance in Colombian dental students. J Dent Educ. 2019;83(6): pp. 697–705.
  • Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(2): pp. 240–261.