A comparison of synchronous and noncontingent stimulus delivery on task engagement.

Synchronous schedules of reinforcement are those in which the onset and offset of a reinforcer are synchronized with the onset and offset of a target behavior. The current study replicated and extended Diaz de Villegas et al. (2020) by comparing synchronous reinforcement to noncontingent stimulus delivery while evaluating on-task behavior of school-age children. A concurrent-chains preference assessment was then used to determine the preferred schedule. Results indicated that the synchronous schedule was more effective than the continuous, noncontingent delivery of the stimulus at increasing on-task behavior but that the children preferred noncontingent delivery. Additionally, the use of synchronous and noncontingent delivery did not alter the children's preference for the task.

Differences Between Attached and Detached Cadaveric Prosections on Students' Identification Ability During Practical Examinations.

Cadaveric prosections are effective learning tools in anatomy education. They range from a fully dissected, sometimes plastinated, complete cadaver (in situ prosections), to a single, carefully dissected structure detached from a cadaver (ex situ prosections). While most research has focused on the advantages and disadvantages of dissection versus prosection, limited information is available on the instructional efficacy of different prosection types. This contribution explored potential differences between in situ and ex situ prosections regarding the ability of undergraduate students to identify anatomical structures. To determine if students were able to recognize the same anatomical structure on both in situ and ex situ prosections, or on either one individually, six structures were tagged on both prosection types as part of three course summative examinations. The majority of students (61%-68%) fell into one of the two categories: those that recognized or failed to recognize the same structure on both in situ and ex situ prosections. The percentage of students who recognized a selected structure on only one type of prosection was small (1.6%-31.6%), but skewed in favor of ex situ prosections (P ≤ 0.01). These results suggest that overall students' identification ability was due to knowledge differences, not the spatial or contextual challenges posed by each type of prosection. They also suggest that the relative difficulty of either prosection type depends on the nature of the anatomical structure. Thus, one type of prosection might be more appropriate for teaching some structures, and therefore the use of both types is recommended.