85 - "This Atlas Is the Reason I Passed My Lab Practical!": Evaluating the Use of Structured Post Laboratory Resources in the Medical Gross Anatomy Flipped Classroom

Poster Board Number: 85
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Medical gross anatomy courses using student-centered approaches like flipped classroom (FC) give students the responsibility of selecting what supplemental learning tools are beneficial to study after class. This can be detrimental to students who struggle to self-identify knowledge gaps. This study examines the utility of novel structured supplemental post laboratory resources (SSPLR). It is hypothesized medical gross anatomy students who use the structured resources will perform better academically and have more confidence in their anatomical knowledge.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
First year medical students (n=172) were recruited for participation during the gastrointestinal (GI) system course of a longitudinal integrated curriculum. The anatomy component of the GI course uses a FC design with students reviewing structured resources prior to a prosection-based anatomy lab where they complete problem-solving and application activities. The novel SSPLR developed for the GI course consisted of two tools: 1) photographic cadaver atlas with labeled and unlabeled images matching lab prosections created using a modified en mass autopsy protocol, and 2) four interactive modules of conceptual and image-based activities aligned with the weekly learning objectives. Academic performance, content confidence, and resource perceptions were evaluated using a knowledge quiz and survey. The 16-question quiz covered the GI course learning objectives. Eight of the quiz questions could be answered using the novel atlas, while the others could not. The 37-question perception survey included 10 Likert Statements ranging from 1: Strongly Disagree to 5: Strongly Agree and open-ended prompts.

RESULTS
The response rates were 33.14% (n=57) for the content quiz and 41.28% (n=71) for the perception survey. The content quiz scores were not normally distributed with a median score of 81.3% ± 9.31%. The median scores were 87.5% ± 10.1% for the questions covered in the atlas and 75% ± 13.6% for the questions not covered in the atlas. All Likert Statements had a mode of 5 as participants strongly agreed their anatomy knowledge and concept confidence increased after using the SSPLR. It was strongly agreed similar content-specific review resources would be helpful outside of the GI course and for gross anatomy in other system courses. Participants would also strongly recommend the use of SSPLR to future cohorts. A thematic analysis revealed the resources were helpful to identify knowledge gaps and prepare for examinations, and 21% of participants requested the structured resources be made available for the gross anatomy curriculum in future first year courses for medical students.

CONCLUSION
This study demonstrated SSLR are beneficial to students’ academic performance and confidence in a FC gross anatomy course. The structured resources allowed students to review complex anatomical concepts and provided instant feedback which enabled students to accurately self-identify knowledge gaps. The cadaver atlas depicted similar prosection views seen in the anatomy lab giving students access to course specific resources, which may have been more beneficial than the modules’ general review.

SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATION
FC gross anatomy courses should also consider providing their students with structured resources to review after class. This study is a start to determine the most advantageous approach for supplemental resources in medical gross anatomy.