Development and Implementation of the Inaugural Anatomy Education Research Institute (AERI 2017)

Education research is increasingly being recognized as a legitimate route for faculty development in universities. However, many anatomy faculty lack the appropriate training and access to experienced mentors who can help them develop their own education research projects. Inspired by the American Physiological Society’s Institute for Teaching and Learning, the coauthors proposed and developed the inaugural Anatomy Education Research Institute (AERI 2017). Funded by an American Association of Anatomists Innovations grant, the five-day institute was held in Bloomington, Indiana in July 2017. The coauthors spent two years preparing the conference schedule, inviting speakers who could discuss education research topics and mentor applicants, reviewing applications, developing assessment instruments for the institute, and hosting the institute. A total of 62 registered participants (applicants and invited speakers) attended AERI 2017. Through a series of presentations and workshops, participants were introduced to many aspects of education research and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, including developing rigorous education research questions, determining appropriate methods to assess these questions, and searching the education research literature. Each day also included regular time devoted to work on their own education research project with help from more experienced mentors. Throughout the conference, participants were encouraged to post information on Twitter, using the hashtag #AERI2017. Participants had strong positive impressions of the conference and strongly requested future AERI conferences be held. Follow-up analyses will assess the institute in alignment with Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation Model, though preliminary evaluation indicates AERI 2017 met the original aims of the proposal.     

Quantitative and qualitative changes in teaching histology by means of virtual microscopy in an introductory course in human anatomy

This study compares overall laboratory averages and individual test scores along with a student survey to determine the effects of using virtual microscopy in place of optical microscopes in a large undergraduate human anatomy course. T‐tests revealed that the first two laboratory examinations (of four) and the overall laboratory averages were significantly increased compared with the previous year. We hypothesize that this is due to students' ability to use and understand the technology quickly as opposed to learning how to maneuver an optical microscope. Students also responded positively in a survey about the virtual microscope, indicating that increased accessibility, ease of use, and the ability to understand the material were important components of the virtual microscope. In addition, an increase in student collaboration was noted because multiple students were able to view the image at a time. This level of acceptance of virtual microscopy has been reported in previous studies, though this level of increased examination scores is rare. We attribute this to differences between the medical students, with whom this technology has been researched in the past, and undergraduate introductory students. Anat Sci Educ 2:218–226, 2009. © 2009 American Association of Anatomists.     

Study skills in anatomy and physiology: Is there a difference?

Many factors influence the way individual students study, including but not limited to: previous coursework, attitudes toward the class (motivation, intimidation, risk, etc.), metacognition, and work schedules. However, little of this research has involved medical students. The present article asks the question, “Do individual medical students study differently for different classes?” Study skills surveys were given to United States medical students at an allopathic medical school and an osteopathic medical school. Students were surveyed near the end of their first year gross anatomy course and again near the end of their first year physiology course. Survey items included Likert scale and open‐ended questions about study habits and basic demographic information. The survey responses were correlated with each student's final grade percentages in the courses. Analysis revealed that the four most common study habits were reviewing lecture notes, taking practice examinations, completing learning exercises, and making drawings and diagrams. The two surveys (anatomy and physiology) from each individual were also compared to see if students reported different study habits in anatomy versus physiology. A negative correlation was found between changing study habits between courses and final anatomy grade percentages. Additional analyses suggest that those students who do change their study habits between courses are increasing the number of study strategies that they attempt. This increase in the number of study strategies attempted may not allow the student to reach the same depth of understanding as their colleagues who utilize fewer strategies. Anat Sci Educ. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.     

Knowledge Gains and Changing Attitudes from the Anatomy Education Research Institute (AERI 2017): A Mixed Methods Analysis

The inaugural Anatomy Education Research Institute (AERI 2017) was held in Bloomington, Indiana in July of 2017. This workshop style conference paired experienced educational researchers (invited speakers) with individuals interested in learning more about the field (accepted applicants). In 2017, AERI was held over a five-day period and entailed plenary style presentations, break-out sessions, and specific times for small group mentorship. All participants (applicants and invited speakers) completed a pre-conference survey at the beginning of the institute and a post-conference survey at the end of the institute. Both surveys included categorical and Likert scale questions as well as open-ended questions for participant feedback. Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that both applicants and speakers increased their knowledge of anatomy education research, but that additional obstacles remain. Funding, time, and a lack of respect for the field remain problematic for faculty that wish to complete educational research. Mentorship and a community of practice also emerged as major themes necessary for educational research to be successful.     

Correlating Spatial Ability With Anatomy Assessment Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Interest in spatial ability has grown over the past few decades following the emergence of correlational evidence associating spatial aptitude with educational performance in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The research field at large and the anatomy education literature on this topic are mixed. In an attempt to generate consensus, a meta-analysis was performed to objectively summarize the effects of spatial ability on anatomy assessment performance across multiple studies and populations. Relevant studies published within the past 50 years (1969–2019) were retrieved from eight databases. Study eligibility screening was followed by a full-text review and data extraction. Use of the Mental Rotations Test (MRT) was required for study inclusion. Out of 2,450 screened records, 15 studies were meta-analyzed. Seventy-three percent of studies (11 of 15) were from the United States and Canada, and the majority (9 of 15) studied professional students. Across 15 studies and 1,245 participants, spatial ability was weakly associated with anatomy performance (r_pooled = 0.240; CI at 95% = 0.09, 0.38; P = 0.002). Performance on spatial and relationship-based assessments (i.e., practical assessments and drawing tasks) was correlated with spatial ability, while performance on assessments utilizing non-spatial multiple-choice items was not correlated with spatial ability. A significant sex difference was also observed, wherein males outperformed females on spatial ability tasks. Given the role of spatial reasoning in learning anatomy, educators are encouraged to consider curriculum delivery modifications and a comprehensive assessment strategy so as not to disadvantage individuals with low spatial ability.     

Another Nail in the Coffin for Learning Styles? Disparities among Undergraduate Anatomy Students’ Study Strategies,Class Performance,and Reported VARK Learning Styles

The concept and existence of learning styles has been fraught with controversy, and recent studies have thrown their existence into doubt. Yet, many students still hold to the conventional wisdom that learning styles are legitimate, and may adapt their outside of class study strategies to match these learning styles. Thus, this study aims to assess if undergraduate anatomy students are more likely to utilize study strategies that align with their hypothetical learning styles (using the VARK analysis from Fleming and Mills, 1992 , Improve Acad. 11:137–155) and, if so, does this alignment correlate with their outcome in an anatomy course. Relatedly, this study examines whether students’ VARK learning styles are correlated with course outcomes regardless of the students’ study strategies, and whether any study strategies are correlated with course outcomes, regardless of student-specific VARK results. A total of 426 anatomy students from the 2015 and 2016 Fall semesters completed a study strategies survey and an online VARK questionnaire. Results demonstrated that most students did not report study strategies that correlated with their VARK assessment, and that student performance in anatomy was not correlated with their score in any VARK categories. Rather, some specific study strategies (irrespective of VARK results), such as use of the virtual microscope, were found to be positively correlated with final class grade. However, the alignment of these study strategies with VARK results had no correlation with anatomy course outcomes. Thus, this research provides further evidence that the conventional wisdom about learning styles should be rejected by educators and students alike. Anat Sci Educ. © 2018 American Association of Anatomists.