Premium
Self‐Reported Student Assessments as Predictors of Gross Anatomy Success
Author(s) -
Graham John H.,
Barizo McTheophilus,
Coates Darren,
Rustin Emily,
Weicht Jessica,
Wilkinson Elizabeth
Publication year - 2020
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.2020.34.s1.06122
Subject(s) - gross anatomy , cadaveric spasm , cadaver , likert scale , medicine , curriculum , medical education , psychology , anatomy , developmental psychology , pedagogy
This study sought to identify factors that contribute to success in an interprofessional, graduate‐level, cadaveric anatomy courses, composed of physical therapy (DPT) and occupational therapy (MOT) students. One hypothesis predicted that team‐based learning (TBL) would improve student outcomes. A second hypothesis predicted that students classified by the M4 (highly capable and confident) category, of the Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory, would be more successful in the anatomy course. The course utilized two different types of cadavers – traditionally‐embalmed (TEC) and soft‐embalmed (SEC). Analysis was conducted on self‐reported factors, from graduate level DPT and MOT students, which could underlie success in a cadaveric gross anatomy course. The participants consisted of 34 MOT and 33 DPT first‐year cohort students, who completed an 18 question Qualtrics self‐reported survey consisting of Likert scales, categorical choices, and open‐ended responses, regarding their overall performance in a cadaveric gross anatomy lab and lecture course. Based on the participants’ responses to the survey, it was found that the mean lab grade for students who dissected the TEC cadaver was only marginally lower than students who dissected the SEC cadaver. The mean lab grade for students with three group members was slightly lower than the mean grade of students with four group members (87.80 vs. 88.82). These results indicated that TBL in the lab was not a significant factor, as there was little difference in average lab grade when comparing three‐ and four‐person teams. Participants responded that their average skill level before participation in dissection was 1.4 and after was 3.61, which was found to be significantly different (p < 0.001). Studying up to eight hours per week appeared to be the optimal time that yielded successful results. Variability in reported time spent studying and grades suggests that quality needs to be taken into account. Results from other survey questions did not support the hypothesis that students fitting the M4 category of Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory would be more successful in the anatomy course. Overall, success appeared to be most dependent on a cumulative result from hands‐on experience, learning style, and quality of study.