Ülkemizde İngilizce Tıp Eğitiminde Kullanılan Nöroanatomi Kitaplarının ve Wikipedia’daki Nöroanatomi Sayfalarının Okunabilirliği

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 138 - 153, 31.05.2022

Kaan Yücel

https://doi.org/10.52538/iduhes.1066883

Abstract

Anatomi eğitim saatlerinin yıllar geçtikçe düşüş gösterme eğilimi özellikle nöroanatomi için belirgindir. Ders saatlerindeki bu dramatik düşüş ile öğrenci kendi kendine çalışma imkanını daha çok bulmaktadır ve bu zamanı da YouTube videoları izlemek gibi konvansiyonel olmayan günümüz teknolojisinin olanaklarını kullanarak geçirmektedir. İnternetteki kaynakların doğruluğu ve geçerliliği düşük seviyede olduğundan öğrencinin kendi kendine çalışmak için geçirdiği zamanda ders notlarına ek olarak en önemli kaynağı ders kitaplarıdır. Okunabilirlik” kavramı bir metnin okuyucu tarafından anlaşılmasında yaşanan kolaylık veya güçlük olarak tanımlamıştır. En popular okunabilirlik indekslerden biri Flesch–Kincaid Okunabilirlik İndeksidir. Ders kitabının okunabilirliği ve anlaşılabilirliği düşük ise müfredat materyali olarak kullanımı sıkıntı yaratacaktır ve öğrencilerde engellenme hissi ve can sıkıntısına neden olacaktır. Tüm bunların sonucu öğrencinin akademik performansının düşmesiyle sonuçlanabilir. Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com) var olan en büyük ansiklopedidir. Günümüzde sağlıkla ilgili fakültelerdeki İngilizce eğitim popülerliğini günümüzde de korumaktadır. Ülkemizde toplam 76 sağlıkla ilgili eğitim veren fakülte veya program yer almaktadır. Görüldüğü üzere yabancı dilde sağlıkla ilgili bölümlerde eğitim binlerce öğrenciyi ilgilendirmektedir. Öğrencinin okuduğu ders kitabındaki metinle ilgili dil yetenekleri okuduğunu kavraması ve öğrenmek için motivasyonu ile ilişkilidir ve okuduğunu kolaylıkla anlayan öğrencinin motivasyonu ile orantılı olarak ilgisi de yüksek olacaktır ki bu da hızlı öğrenme için önemli bir itici güçtür. Ülkemizdeki İngilizce eğitim veren tıp fakültelerinde yer alan anatomi anabilim dallarındaki öğretim üyelerinin tercih ettikleri nöroanatomi ders kitapları olan Snell’in “Klinik Nöroanatomi kitabı” ve Patestas ve Gartner’ın “Nöroanatomi Ders Kitabı” ve öğrencilerin bilgi kaynağı olarak favori web sitesi olan Wikipedia’daki on seçilmiş nöroanatomi konusuna ait metinlerde Flesch–Kincaid Okunabilirlik İndeksi kullanılarak okunabilirlik skorları ve seviyeleri, toplam sözcük, resim/şekil sayısı ve metin içindeki edilgen cümlelerin oranı incelendi. Çalışma sonucunda okunabilirlik düzeyleri arasında “Nöroanatomi Ders Kitabı” aleyhine bir fark olmakla birlikte, genelde okunabilirlik seviyeleri 14. ve 16. sınıf seviyesinde olmak üzere çok yüksekti. Ortalama okunabilirlik skorları da 22-32 arasında değişen düşük seviyelerdeydi. Nöroanatomi kaynağı olarak resim/şekil sayısı açısından çevrimiçi ve ders kitapları arasında bir fark yoktu. “Nöroanatomi Ders Kitabı”ndaki edilgen cümlelerin metin içindeki oranı diğer iki kaynağa göre oldukça azdı. Sonuç olarak, İngilizce tıp eğitiminde sunulan kaynakların öğrenciler için zor anlaşılacağı ve okunabilirlik seviyelerinin bazı konularda neredeyse bilimsel materyallerin seviyesinde olduğu göz önünde bulundurularak bu soruna ivedi çözüm getirilmelidir.

Keywords

Nöroanatomi, sağlık bilimleri eğitimi, ders kitapları, Wikipedia, okunabilirlik

READABILITY OF NEUROANATOMY TEXTBOOKS USED IN ENGLISH MEDICAL EDUCATION IN TURKEY AND NEUROANATOMY WEBPAGES ON WIKIPEDIA

Abstract

The trend of decreasing anatomy lecture hours over the years is particularly evident for neuroanatomy. With this dramatic decrease in class hours, the student finds more opportunities for self-studying and spends this time using the possibilities of today's technology, via unconventional mediums such as watching YouTube videos. Since the accuracy and validity of the resources on the internet is low, the most important source of the student's time spent on self-study, in addition to the lecture notes, is the textbooks. textbooks. The concept of readability is defined as the ease or difficulty experienced in understanding a text by the reader. One of the most popular readability indexes is the Flesch–Kincaid Readability Index. If the readability of the textbook is low, its use as a curriculum material will create problems and cause students to feel blocked and bored. The result of all these may result in a decrease in the academic performance of the student. Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com) is the largest encyclopedia in existence. English education in health-related faculties is still popular today. In our country, there are 76 health-related faculties or programs with English curriculum. It is obvious that healthcare education in English concerns thousands of students in the entire country. The language skills related to the text are related to student’s comprehension and motivation to learn, and will have a high interest in parallel to motivation of the student who can easily understand what s/he reads, and this is an important driving force for rapid learning. The readability scores and levels by using the Flesch-Kincaid Readablity Index, total number of words, pictures/figures and the ratio of the passive sentences in the text were examined for the text in 10 selected neuroanatomy topics in Snell's "Clinical Neuroanatomy book" and Patestas and Gartner's "A Neuroanatomy Textbook", neuroanatomy textbooks preferred by the faculty members in anatomy departments and Wikipedia, the students' favorite information source. “A Neuroanatomy Textbook”was hardes to read, but in general readability levels were poor, being at the 14th and 16th grade levels with an average readability score between 22-32. The rate of passive sentences in the Neuroanatomy Textbook was very low compared to the other two sources. As a result, considering that the resources presented in English medical education are difficult for students to understand and the readability levels are almost at scientific level in some subjects, this problem should be resolved immediately

Keywords

Neuroanatomy, healthcare education, textbooks, Wikipedia, readability

References

• Agnihotri, RK., & Khanna, AL. (1991). Evaluating the Readability of School Textbooks: An Indian Study. Journal of Reading, 35(4), 282-288.
• Arantes, M., Andrade, JP, Barbosa J., & Ferreira, MA. (2020). Curricular changes: the impact on medical students knowledge of neuroanatomy. BMC Med Educ, 20(1), 20.
• Arantes, M., Arantes, J., & Ferreira, MA. (2018). Tools and resources for neuroanatomy education: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ, 18(1), 94.
• Armbruster, JB., Osborn, JH., & Davison, AL. (1985). Readability Formulas May Be Dangerous to Your Textbooks. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 18-20.
• Ateşman, E. (1997). Measuring readability in Turkish. Journal of Language, 58, 71-74. Azer, SA. (2015). Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics. Adv Physiol Educ, 39(1), 5-14.
• Azer, SA., AlSwaidan, NM., Alshwairikh, LA., & AlShammari, JM. (2015). Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students? BMJ Open, 5(10), e008187.
• Azer, SA. (2014). Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: are they suitable as learning resources for medical students? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 26(2), 155-163.
• Bansiong, AJ. (2019). Readability, content, and mechanical feature analysis of selected commercial science textbooks intended for third grade filipino learners. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1706395.
• Brabston, ME., Nixon, JC., & Helms, MM. (1998). An evaluation of introductory MIS textbooks based on readability measures. Journal of Information Systems Education, 9(1-2), 29-34.
• Chiang, WC., Englebrecht, TD., Phillips, TJ., & Wang, Y. (2008). Readability of Financial Accounting Principles Textbooks. The Accounting Educator’s Journal, 18, 47-88.
• Chiang-Soong, B., & Yager. RE. (1993). Readability Levels of the Science Textbooks Most Used in Secondary Schools. School Science and Mathematics, 93(1), 24-27.
• Chi, E., Jabbour, N., & Aaronson. NL. (2017). Quality and readability of websites for patient information on tonsillectomy and sleep apnea. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 98, 1-3.
• Craig, S., Tait, N., Boers, D., & McAndrew, D. (2010). Review of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools. ANZ J Surg, 80(4), 212-216.
• Crossley, SA., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, DS. (2008). Assessing Text Readability Using Cognitively Based Indices. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 475-493.
• Drake, RL., Vogl, AW., Mitchell, AWM. (2014). Gray’s Anatomy For Students. Third Edition, Churchill & Livingstone Elsevier, Philadelphia, USA.
• Drake, RL., McBride, JM., Lachman, N., & Pawlina, W. (2009). Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ, 2(6), 253-259.
• Dubay, W. H. (2004). The Principles of Readability, 1-20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228965813_The_Principles_of_Readability Ghosh, SK. & Chakraborty, S. (2015). Enhancing learning in anatomy lectures. Educ Health (Abingdon), 28(3), 216-217.
• Fang, Z. (2007). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491-520.
• Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of applied psychology, 32(3), 221.
• Flesch, R. (1943). Marks of readable style; a study in adult education. Teachers College Contributions to Educationi Columbia University. 1- 69.
• Flory, SM., Phillips, TJ., & Tassin, MF. (1992). Measuring readability: a comparison of accounting textbooks. Journal of Accounting Education, 10, 151-161.
• Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus leveling. The Reading Teacher, 56, 286-291.
• Fuller, S., Horlen, C., Cisneros, R., & Merz, T. (2007) Pharmacy students' reading ability and the readability of required reading materials. Am J Pharm Educ, 71(6), 111. Ghassemi, E., Fuller, S., Cisneros, R., Barnes, C., McLendon, A., Wilson, D. (2019). Impact of social media use on reading levels in third-year student pharmacists. Curr Pharm Teach Learn, 11(9), 915-919.
• Griesinger, WS., & Klene, RR. (1984). Readability of Introductory Psychology Textbooks: Flesch versus Student Ratings.Teaching of Psychology, 11(2), 90-91. Fuller, S., Horlen, C., Cisneros, R., & Merz, T. (2007) Pharmacy students' reading ability and the readability of required reading materials. Am J Pharm Educ, 71(6), 111.
• Handler, SJ., Eckhardt, SE., Takashima, Y., Jackson, AM., Truong, C., & Yazdany, T. (2021). Readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J, 32(12), 3249-3258.
• Herbert, VG., Frings, A., Rehatschek, H., Richard, G., Leithner, A. (2015). Wikipedia--challenges and new horizons in enhancing medical education. BMC Med Educ,15,32.
• Hu, J., Gao, XA., & Qui, X. (2021). Lexical Coverage and Readability of Science Textbooks for English-Medium Instruction Secondary Schools in Hong Kong. SAGE Open, 1-9.
• Javaid, MA., Schellekens, H., Cryan, JF., & Toulouse, A. (2020). Evaluation of Neuroanatomy Web Resources for Undergraduate Education: Educators' and Students' Perspectives. Anat Sci Educ, 13(2), 237-249.
• Jindal, P., & MacDermid, JC. (2017). Assessing reading levels of health information: uses and limitations of flesch formula. Educ Health (Abingdon), 30(1), 84-88.
• Jozefowicz, RF. (1994) Neurophobia: the fear of neurology among medical students. Arch Neurol, 51(4), 328–329.
• Keith, B., Sloas, SB., Mooney, M., & Norris, T. (2014). Readability of PTA Textbooks and Reading Comprehension Rates of PTA Students. International Association for Research on Textbooks and Educational Media e-Journal, 6(1), 37-47.
• Kerr, M. (1949). Use of Readability Formulas in Selecting Textbooks. The Elementary School Journal, 49 (7), 411-414.
• Kincaid, JP., Fishburne, RP., Rogers, RL., Chissom, BS. (1975). Derivation Of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count And Flesch Reading Ease Formula) For Navy Enlisted Personnel. Institute for Simulation and Training. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/istlibrary/56
• Ledger, TS. (2017). Introduction to anatomy on Wikipedia. J Anat, 231(3), 430-432.
• Ley, P., & Florio, T. (1996). The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 1(1), 7-28.
• Lüle Mert, E. (2013). Türkiye’de Kullanılan Türkçe Ders Kitaplarındaki Metinlerin Okunabilirlikleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(3), 87-98.
• London, DA., Andelman, SM., Christiano, AV., Kim, JH., Hausman, MR., & Kim, JM. (2019). Is Wikipedia a complete and accurate source for musculoskeletal anatomy? Surg Radiol Anat, 41(10), 1187-1192.
• McBride, JM., & Drake, RL. (2018). National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ, 11(1), 7-14.
• Memon, M., Ginsberg, L., Simunovic, N., Ristevski, B., Bhandari, M., & Kleinlugtenbelt, YV. (2016). Quality of Web-based Information for the 10 Most Common Fractures. Interact J Med Res, 5(2), e19.
• Millar, N. & Budgell, BS. (2019). The passive voice and comprehensibility of biomedical texts: An experimental study with 2 cohorts of chiropractic students. J Chiropr Educ, 33(1),16-20.
• Modiri, O., Guha, D., Alotaibi, NM., Ibrahim, GM., Lipsman, N., & Fallah, A. (2018). Readability and quality of wikipedia pages on neurosurgical topics. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 166, 66-70.
• Moore, KL., Dalley, AF., Agur, AMR. (2010). Clinically Oriented Anatomy. 6th Edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, USA.
• Moreb B. (2016). The Frequency of the Passive Voice in Freshman Academic Books. Electronic Theses and Dissertations, University of Central Florida, USA, 1-117.
• Microsoft Office Support. (2022). Get your document's readability and level statistics. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/get-your-document-s-readability-and-level-statistics-85b4969e-e80a-4777-8dd3-f7fc3c8b3fd2
• Ngo, DH., Truran, D., Kemp, M., Lawley, M., & Metke-Jimenez, A. (2019). Can Wikipedia Be Used to Derive an Open Clinical Terminology? Stud Health Technol Inform, 266, 136-141.
• Ownby, RL. (2005). Influence of vocabulary and sentence complexity and passive voice on the readability of consumer-oriented mental health information on the Internet. AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2005, 585-589.
• Patestas, MA. & Gartner, LP. (2016). A Textbook of Neuroanatomy, 2nd Edition John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA.
• Palomera, PR., Juanes Méndez, JA, & Galino AP. (2014). Enhancing neuroanatomy education using computer-based instructional material. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 446-452.
• Plucinski, KJ., Olsavsky, J., & Hall, L. (2009). Readability of introductory financial and managerial accounting textbooks. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(4), 119-127.
• Rajagopalan, MS., Khanna, VK., Leiter, Y., Stott, M., Showalter, TN., Dicker, AP., & Lawrence, YR. (2011). Patient-oriented cancer information on the internet: a comparison of wikipedia and a professionally maintained database. J Oncol Pract, 7(5), 319-323.
• Rottensteiner, S. (2010). Structure, function and readability of new textbooks in relation to comprehension. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3892–3898.
• Russo, A., Lavorgna, L., Silvestro, M., Abbadessa, G., Bisecco, A., Trojsi, F., Tessitore, A., Tedeschi, G., & Bonavita, S. (2020). Readability Analysis of Online Headache and Migraine Information. Headache, 60(7), 1317-1324.
• Sarıkaya, Ö., Yeğen, BÇ., Sav, A., Fak, AS., İstik, S. (2003). Yabancı Dilde Tıp Eğitimi Tartışması. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 10, 15-21.
• Shedlosky-Shoemaker, R., Sturm, AC., Saleem, M., & Kelly, KM. (2009). Tools for assessing readability and quality of health-related web sites. Journal of genetic counselling, 18(1), 49-59.
• Schrampfer Azar B. (2000). Chartbook a reference grammar: Understanding and using English grammar. 3rd edition, White Plains, Pearson Education, New York, USA.
• Snell, RS. Clinical Neuroanatomy. (2010). Williams & Wilkins, a Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia, USA.
• Suwannakhan, A., Casanova-Martínez, D., Yurasakpong, L., Montriwat, P., Meemon, K., & Limpanuparb, T. (2020). The Quality and Readability of English Wikipedia Anatomy Articles. Anat Sci Educ, 13(4), 475-487.
• Tekbıyık, A. (2006). Lise Fizik I ders kitabının okunabilirliği ve hedef yaş düzeyine uygunluğu. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 14, 441-446.
• Ulusoy, M. (2006). Readability approaches: Implications for Turkey. International Education Journal, 7(3), 323-332.
• Vilensky, JA., & Steenberg, J. (2015). Anatomy and Wikipedia. Clin Anat, 28(5), 565-567.
• Villere, MF. & Stearns GK. (1976). The Readability of Organizational Behavior Textbooks. The Academy of Management Journal, 19 (1), 132-137.
• Wang, LW., Miller, MJ., Schmitt, MR., & Wen, FK. (2013). Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Social Adm Pharm, 9(5),503-516.
• Wineski, LE. (2019). Snell's Clinical Anatomy by Regions. 10th Edition, Wolters Kluwer, Philadephia, USA.
• Witherington, HC. (1952). Readability of Textbooks in Educational Psychology, The Journal of Educational Research, 46,3, 227-230.
• Yacob, M., Lotfi, S., Tang, S., & Jetty, P. (2020). Wikipedia in Vascular Surgery Medical Education: Comparative Study. JMIR Med Educ, 6(1), e18076. YÖK Atlası: Tıp Programı Olan Üniversiteler. (2022). http://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr