105 - Pipelines to Platforms: Examples of Formative Assessments That Encourage Student Agency in the Anatomy Lab

Poster Board Number: 105
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : The standard teaching approach serves to transmit information from the instructor to students as a “pipeline”, usually within a lecture or laboratory setting and including formative and summative assessments. Current literature suggests that student agency in learning, or the co-ownership in the learning process, predicts positive academic performance and personal skill outcomes. Our goal was to create space in the curriculum that functions as a “platform” where lines between producer and user are blurred (e.g. Uber or Airbnb). We strategized an anatomy platform to promote agency through several types of student generated formative assessments (a-e). First-year medical student anatomy teams, comprised of 4-6 students, worked together to complete assessments. Some were graded while others were not. Teams completed dissections on a human donor and participated in (a) Table Conferences, which functioned to assess team comprehension and provide opportunity for learning. (b) Speed Reviews were optional, peer-led reviews of regional anatomy held several days before the exam. Faculty assisted in training volunteers for this review, who were prepared to teach their designated section in six, 10-minute rotations. Teams were also instructed to complete graded (c) Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) Assignments that tested lecture content and replicated boards-style formatting. These questions were quality-assessed by faculty and compiled by a student into an optional (d) Jeopardy-Style Review. Additionally, (e) Imaging Assignments requested teams to identify and label relevant anatomy in radiological imaging (CT, MRI, and X-rays) for a grade. We found graded assignments (table conferences, MCQ and imaging assignments) to have profound participation, which predictably stipulates medical students are motivated by grades to participate. We were impressed, however, by student engagement in our non-mandatory platforms. While Speed Review attendance slightly increased when preparing for the first (97.5%, 155 of 159 students) and second exam (99.4%, 156 of 159 students), participation in Jeopardy Reviews substantially decreased (first exam: 67.9%, 108 of 159 students; second exam: 23.9%, 38 of 159 students). However, feedback from students suggests absence in the Jeopardy Review was largely due to using this student generated resource as an independent practice examination. Several unprompted student generated events occurred including Saturday laboratory review sessions, imaging reviews to assist peers in radiological and anatomical comprehension, and student-compiled imaging resources. Compared to previous years efforts at faculty-provided resources and reviews to prepare for summative assessments, we found that a student generated formative assessment strategy is both highly subscribed and enjoyable. While curricula in general are intransigent and demotivate student input, shifting from pipeline to platform mindset has opened new possibilities for student engagement and exam preparation that is easily transferable. These displays of personal responsibility for learning influence professional identity formation, and future works will aim to determine the perceived impact from this agency-centered addition to the curriculum.