103 - Assessing the Influence of Curriculum-specific Checklists in Gross Anatomy Laboratories on Students’ Academic Performance: A Cross-over Study

Poster Board Number: 103
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : The University of Guelph is a Canadian institution whose human anatomy program is renowned for offering prosection- and dissection-based anatomy education to non-medical undergraduate students. Cadaveric dissection is revered by many in the anatomy community as the gold standard in anatomy education but is an inherently time- and resource-intensive teaching method. As such, it is essential that the afforded time in dissection laboratories is spent efficiently.
Though the reported use of checklists in anatomy education is limited, previously published data suggests that the use of checklists as a laboratory resource may help maximize laboratory efficiency by guiding self-directed learning during laboratory periods and setting clear curriculum expectations. The aim of the present study is to explore how the use of curriculum-specific checklists in the gross anatomy dissection laboratory affects student academic performance. We hypothesized that the provision of a curriculum-specific checklist during laboratory periods would improve students’ academic performance.
Undergraduate students (n=40) enrolled in a fourth-year, advanced human anatomy dissection course participated within this study. Students were assigned to one of two laboratory sections (n=20 per group) using a stratified randomization method to ensure equal distribution of potential covariates such as previous dissection experience and program of study. Within these groups, students were further subdivided into groups of four to complete their dissections. To determine the effects of checklist provision on student academic performance, a cross-over study was conducted. On day 1 of the study, students within each laboratory section: 1) completed a pre-laboratory quiz and survey, 2) dissected the pectoral region and axilla, and 3) completed a post-laboratory quiz and survey. Curriculum-specific checklists were distributed to each dissection group in one of the laboratory sections. Following a one-week washout period, groups returned on day 2 of the study to complete the same study procedure, where curriculum-specific checklists were then provided to students within the alternate laboratory section.
Quizzes consisted of four multiple choice questions and ten bellringer-style questions. It is important to note that each group was assessed using the same four assessments, but that each of the four assessments were distinct while being composed of similar concepts and cognitive levels. Pre- and post-laboratory quizzes were graded, and scores were documented. We expect to see that academic performance on quizzes improves between pre-laboratory and post-laboratory assessments, and that this mean change will be significantly greater following the use of a curriculum-specific anatomy checklist during the laboratory period. Data analysis is ongoing.
By setting clear curriculum expectations and guiding self-directed learning, we hope that implementation of curriculum-specific checklists will increase student self-sufficiency and enhance quality of learning, thus maximizing efficiency of the dissection lab. Future directions for this research include exploring if the provision of curriculum-specific checklists influences student self-perceived confidence in 1) ability to work independently without the assistance of teaching staff, 2) ability to work as an integral member of a dissection team, and 3) knowledge of the anatomical region, in concurrence with academic performance.