Comparison of Feedback and Small Group Dynamics During In‐person and Online Gross Anatomy Courses

Giving and receiving constructive feedback is necessary for healthcare professionals, and the anatomy lab traditionally has provided an ideal environment to develop this skill. Little is known about how the pandemic and conversion to online learning have impacted small group dynamics that typically occur in an anatomy “lab” setting. For summer 2020, an anatomy course for allied health students, held in‐person in summer 2019, was shifted to an online format for lectures/labs. At the end of both courses, students completed self and peer evaluations based on small group interactions. The purpose of this study was to examine feedback given during the traditional in‐person course versus online. We hypothesized that feedback would be similar between curricula, with students being more critical of themselves than peers. Methods Human Gross Anatomy is a 9‐week course for allied health (physician assistant, occupational therapy, and physical therapy) students (2019 n=133; 2020 n=129). In 2019, the in‐person course consisted of lectures and dissection completed by groups of 4‐5 students. In 2020, the course consisted of online lectures and lab activities conducted via Microsoft Teams, with groups of 4‐5 students identifying structures on cadaveric images. At the end of each course, students provided self and peer feedback consisting of rating rubric statements (score 1‐4) and narrative comments, addressing medical knowledge, professionalism, communication, and practice‐based learning domains. Comments were themed and rating rubric scores were averaged and analyzed using a two‐tail, two‐sample t‐test. Results Students in the 2020 online course rated peers significantly higher in all categories of evaluative questions compared to students in the 2019 in‐person course. These categories include communication (3.8 vs 3.6), teamwork (3.6 vs 3.5), responsibility (3.9 vs. 3.8), self‐awareness (3.8 vs 3.6), and preparedness (3.8 vs 3.6) (p≤0.05). Online students rated themselves significantly higher than in‐person students in communication (3.6 vs. 3.4) and preparedness (3.6 vs. 3.4) (p≤0.05), but there was no significant difference in ratings in other categories. Online students rated themselves significantly lower than peers on questions assessing communication (3.8 vs. 3.6), teamwork (3.6 vs. 3.5), self‐awareness (3.8 vs. 3.6), and preparedness (3.8 vs. 3.6) (p≤0.05), but not in regard to demonstrating responsibility and respect toward cadaver images (3.9 vs. 3.8). A similar trend was seen when in‐person with the exception of teamwork and self‐awareness, which did not show any significant differences. Conclusions Students evaluated peers more critically when in‐person than when online. This may be due to different small group dynamics in these settings. In‐person students have more opportunities to interact with each other and may thus be more comfortable giving feedback. Students from both cohorts evaluated themselves more critically than peers, suggesting they may still be uncomfortable giving constructive criticism. Understanding how students perceive themselves and others in different situations will give insight into methods to improve multidisciplinary communication and professionalism within the healthcare setting.