Student Perception vs Reality in Medical School Anatomy Education: From Alabama to New York

Curricular change has affected medical school teaching across the country and, in particular, the delivery of anatomical education in integrated systems‐based programs. Medical schools endeavor to deliver anatomy content through the most effective teaching modalities for the expressed goal of providing the foundational knowledge students need to be successful on licensing exams, in clerkships, and in residency. Reducing the number of gross anatomy labs, promoting an interactive learning environment, designing self‐directed learning modules, and fostering team‐based collaborations are but some of the current expectations placed upon anatomy educators. Here we report how two medical schools from Alabama (UAB) and New York (Downstate) approach gross anatomy laboratory education, illustrating and contrasting the range of teaching styles and strategies used in their respective curricula. At UAB, gross anatomy is integrated in organ system modules. During laboratory dissections, faculty rotate their coverage for every lab, and towards the end of each lab, there is a review of structures students should have seen during dissection. Anatomy structures are demonstrated on the best dissected donor using an overhead camera to project to the entire lab. At Downstate, faculty are assigned sections (i.e., 5 tables each) where they remain throughout the Unit (e.g., musculoskeletal). Faculty engage in short, pre‐lab talks with students from their section in preparation for each lab, which fosters a rapport between instructor and student. Faculty seek to identify students in need of academic assistance through these interactions. Based on course evaluations, Downstate students perceived that certain groups were receiving superior instruction compared to other groups, while these negative perceptions have not been noted at UAB. Student's t‐tests, however, revealed no statistical significant difference among the 5 sections at Downstate, contradicting the perceived reality. While student perceptions of their learning provide one subset of data, it should not be the primary assessment of their instruction. Evidence of understanding and of competencies, should include direct measures of learning that address learning objectives, structured faculty evaluations and use of assessment guidelines. While student impression of their anatomical education did not match objective metrics of learning, harmony between perception and reality is the worthwhile goal for which to strive. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .