Evaluating the Impact of the Supplemental Instruction Program on Student Academic Performance in Gross Anatomy at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University

Peer tutoring in gross anatomy, widely recognized as a valuable teaching tool, is implemented by most healthcare curricula to supplement student learning. Gross anatomy is a challenging subject for students due to the course's high volume of content and fast pace, novelty of studying for lab practical exams, and minimal provision of individual guidance in large class settings. Peer tutoring directly addresses these challenges. In small group settings, students can review high‐yield concepts, learn study strategies, and receive specific guidance on lab material from peers who previously exceled in the course. Provided early, peer tutoring has the potential to significantly improve the academic performance of students in academic jeopardy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact that participation in the Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP), a peer‐to‐peer tutoring program at the Medical College of Georgia (MCG), has on gross anatomy performance for allied health students over a three‐year period. SIP is offered by the MCG Office of Student and Multicultural Affairs and provides free small group, peer‐led tutoring for students in academic jeopardy. Students in physical therapy, occupational therapy, and physician assistant programs take gross anatomy during a nine‐week, condensed course throughout the summer of their first year. Students are evaluated based on three written and lab practical exams, and a 70% average is considered passing. Students qualify for SIP gross anatomy tutoring if they score a 74% or lower course average and continue to receive tutoring until they achieve an average higher than 74%. Second‐year medical students are selected as tutors based on grades and prior teaching experience. We hypothesize that students will benefit from participating in SIP tutoring, showing significant increases in academic performance on written and lab practical exams compared to students in academic jeopardy who chose not to participate in SIP. Furthermore, we expect a greater increase in lab practical performance compared to written performance because peer tutors predominantly work with students in the gross anatomy lab. During the 2013–2015 allied health gross anatomy courses, 125 out of 382 total students qualified for SIP tutoring by scoring less than 74% on the first written or practical exam. Of the 125 students who qualified, 115 students participated in SIP tutoring. SIP participants demonstrated significant improved performance between the first and second exams with a 4.4% increase (75.8% to 78.2%; p<0.001) in written exam scores and a 12.9% increase (61.8% to 74.7%; p<0.001) in practical exam scores. SIP non‐participants demonstrated a 5.8% increase (72.2% to 78.0%) in written exam scores and a 13.2% increase (66.5% to 79.7%; p<.001) in practical exam scores. At the end of the course, 93% of SIP participants and 90% of SIP non‐participants passed the course, with a 76.9% and 76.1% course average respectively. SIP tutoring significantly increases both written and practical scores with a preferential impact on practical scores. SIP non‐participants also exhibited a significant increase in lab practical scores, a trend that may be explained by self‐selection; compared to SIP participants, non‐SIP participants may be more capable of improving scores without guidance. Overall, our study demonstrates that the SIP tutoring program is an effective tool for improving gross anatomy performance for students in academic jeopardy.