Premium
Worksheets: What Are They Good for? Perspectives on Worksheet‐Based Ultrasound Curriculum in Gross Anatomy Education
Author(s) -
Gritton Cory Buenting,
Kendall John,
Royer Danielle
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.609.2
Subject(s) - worksheet , gross anatomy , facilitator , likert scale , medical education , curriculum , class (philosophy) , psychology , medicine , mathematics education , computer science , anatomy , pedagogy , social psychology , developmental psychology , artificial intelligence
Ultrasound (US) has been implemented within gross anatomy courses in many medical school curricula, though no standardized US curriculum currently exists. However, facilitator led, small group, hands‐on formats are common. At CUSOM, large medical class sizes require numerous facilitators and concurrent sessions to achieve small group, hands‐on live scanning labs suitable for novice learners. Obtaining facilitators and ensuring equivalent experiences across groups remains challenging in the smaller graduate course. The US worksheets were designed to alleviate demand on facilitators and standardize gross anatomy and clinical review in smallgroup scanning labs. The aim of this study was to evaluate student and facilitator perceptions of worksheets created for ultrasound labs integrated in two gross anatomy courses. Worksheets were created for each of six existing US labs integrated into the Spring 2018 (N=37 students) graduate gross anatomy course. Each worksheet contained step‐by‐step scanning instructions, questions reviewing gross anatomy and US terminology, and clinical correlates. In Fall 2018, these worksheets were reorganized to align with five existing US labs for Human Body Block, the medical gross anatomy course (N=184). Graduate (N=35) and medical students (N=152) were recruited to complete a COMIRB exempt‐survey about their perceptions of the US worksheets. The voluntary and anonymous paper survey contained six Likert‐type items regarding worksheet structure and effectiveness. The US facilitators are currently being recruited to complete a survey regarding their perceptions of the worksheets. This COMIRB exempt‐survey is also voluntary and anonymous, however, it is electronic and contains ten Likert items to evaluate facilitator perceptions, plus three forced response items for demographic data. Descriptive statistical analysis of US student survey results showed the majority of graduate (91–100%) and medical (65–92%) students agreed or strongly agreed with four statements regarding the appropriateness of the worksheet structure. Similarly, graduate (91% & 97%) and medical (84% & 85%) students agreed or strongly agreed with both statements regarding worksheet effectiveness for improving understanding of gross anatomy and anatomical relationships. Wilcoxon Rank Sum analysis showed no significant difference between responses from the two student populations (p>0.05). US facilitator data collection is underway. The survey results demonstrated positive student perceptions of the US worksheets. These worksheets, a relatively simple educational innovation, have larger implications as nationwide medical education reform calls for more active learning sessions, which presents challenges for large classes. The results of this study offer important lessons for design and development of US curricula and resources integrated within gross anatomy coursework, and the implementation of large‐scale active learning modalities within the context of gross anatomy education. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .