ABSTRACT
Supplemental instruction (SI) confers student success, as represented by grades, knowledge retention, and student engagement. However, studies often report professional, not undergraduate, program findings. To measure these effects, students studying human anatomy at a university in Ontario, Canada, attended structured (peer-assisted) or unstructured (nonpeer-assisted) SI sessions and completed a pre-/post-survey. Fifty-eight learners (39 systems (SYS) and 19 musculoskeletal (MSK) anatomy) completed both surveys and had responses analyzed. Both cohorts, maintained initial perceptions across pre-/post-analyses (MSK p = 0.1376 and SYS p = 0.3521). Resource usage was similar across both cohorts with discrepancies in skeletal model and textbook use. No MSK learner ranked any lab resources as "not at all useful." MSK learners felt more prepared to write a graded assessment (p = 0.0269), whereas SYS learners did not (p = 0.0680). Stratification of learners in MSK and SYS revealed learners spending between 30 and 60 min in SI sessions during the study period had the highest grades compared to students who spent less than 30 (p = 0.0286) or more than 60 (p = 0.0286) min attending SI sessions, respectively. Most learners in MSK (89.4%) and SYS (66%) concluded that they preferred structured over unstructured SI. Sentiment/thematic analysis using a generative AI-driven large language model revealed learners held positive perceptions of SI, emphasizing structured learning, resources, personalized learning, and support offered as the most prevalent themes surrounding SI. Ultimately, this study provides evidence that supports SI for improving student outcomes related to perceived preparedness for completing assessments and preferred teaching/learning styles in undergraduate human anatomy.
