Premium
Q Methodology Course Evaluation: Investigating Student Perceptions of a Dissection‐Based Undergraduate Gross Anatomy Course
Author(s) -
Byram Jessica N.,
Organ Jason M.,
Yard Michael,
Schmalz Naomi A.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.604.8
Subject(s) - matriculation , medical education , course (navigation) , set (abstract data type) , mathematics education , psychology , thematic analysis , course evaluation , higher education , computer science , medicine , qualitative research , engineering , sociology , social science , law , political science , programming language , aerospace engineering
Increasing numbers of professional programs are requiring upper‐level undergraduate anatomy courses as prerequisites for matriculation. An undergraduate, lecture‐free, dissection‐based regional gross anatomy course was developed to fulfill this need. Since the course is new, the instructors deemed it necessary to examine student perspectives of the course in more detail and depth than provided by institution‐generated course evaluations to ensure future course modifications are informed by student feedback. Aim Evaluate students' perceptions of the course and group them based on commonalities using Q methodology. Methods Q methodology requires participants to sort and rank a set of statements on a table from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A set of 43 statements were generated by faculty and prior students regarding course structure, quality of instruction, assessment, and pre‐laboratory activities. Students in the 2018 cohort of the course were invited to participate in a paper‐based Q methodology course evaluation, sort the 43 statements on a Q sort table, and provide written explanations for their highest and lowest rankings. The sorts were manually entered into the PQMethod 2.35 program and a factor analysis was performed using the recommended settings for Q methodology. Written statements were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic analysis to assist in the interpretation of the factor analysis. This study was granted exempt status from the Institutional Review Board at Indiana University School of Medicine (#1804247884). Results Twelve of 15 students completed the course evaluation. The Q methodology sorted the students into one of three statistically significant groups: Motivated Dissectors (n=6), Traditional Students (n=3), and Inspired Learners (n=3). Motivated Dissectors and Inspired Learners felt strongly that the course did not encourage self‐directed learning and that the pre‐laboratory materials were not adequate to prepare them for quizzes. Traditional Students, however, disagreed, having a favorable opinion of the pre‐laboratory materials, even though this group felt most strongly that the amount of material covered in the course was overwhelming. Discussion and Conclusion These data provided student perspectives of the course that were not obtained with the institution‐generated course evaluation and reinforces the utility of Q methodology for course evaluation. The results of this study will inform future revisions to the course structure and materials with past students' perceptions in mind. Support or Funding Information None to report. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .