ABSTRACT
Despite well-documented benefits, the effectiveness of some aspects of near-peer (NP) teaching in medical education within anatomy curricula remains unclear. Here, we explored the impact of various permutations of staff/student laboratory-based co-teaching in neuroanatomy by determining the optimal staff and student teaching combination. We assessed student perceptions and knowledge acquisition using three different co-teaching strategies. Second-year medical students at the University of Southampton were co-taught neuroanatomy by faculty staff and third-year medical students (NP teachers). Three cohorts, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019, were included in the study. Subsequent cohorts experienced increasingly structured NP teaching with more NP teachers. Students completed evaluations for anatomy sessions, which were statistically compared. The 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 cohorts completed lunchtime quizzes matched to the learning outcomes of each practical session, which were analysed. A focus group involving six students was transcribed and thematically analysed. Anatomy practical ratings were significantly higher when both session structure and NP teacher numbers increased from 3 to 5-6 (p = 0.0010) and from 3 to 7-8 (p = 0.0020). There were no significant differences in anatomy practical ratings using 5-6 and 7-8 NP teachers (p > 0.9999). There were no significant differences between the knowledge scores of students who experienced 5-6 and 7-8 NP teachers. Themes detailing the benefits of NP teaching and the importance of faculty involvement were identified, demonstrating that students appreciated NP teaching within a co-teaching environment. Therefore, increased NP teaching may augment students' perceptions and knowledge acquisition. In this context, the optimal number of NP teachers may sit between 5 and 8.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Against a backdrop of ever-changing diagnostic and treatment modalities, stakeholder perceptions (medical students, clinicians, anatomy educators) are crucial for the design of an anatomy curriculum which fulfils the criteria required for safe medical practice. This study compared perceptions of students, practising clinicians, and anatomy educators with respect to the relevance of anatomy education to medicine. METHODS: A quantitative survey was administered to undergraduate entry (n = 352) and graduate entry students (n = 219) at two Irish medical schools, recently graduated Irish clinicians (n = 146), and anatomy educators based in Irish and British medical schools (n = 30). Areas addressed included the association of anatomy with medical education and clinical practice, mode of instruction, and curriculum duration. RESULTS: Graduate-entry students were less likely to associate anatomy with the development of professionalism, teamwork skills, or improved awareness of ethics in medicine. Clinicians highlighted the challenge of tailoring anatomy education to increase student readiness to function effectively in a clinical role. Anatomy educators indicated dissatisfaction with the time available for anatomy within medical curricula, and were equivocal about whether curriculum content should be responsive to societal feedback. CONCLUSIONS: The group differences identified in the current study highlight areas and requirements which medical education curriculum developers should be sensitive to when designing anatomy courses.
ABSTRACT
An improved understanding of the relationship between anatomy learning performance and approaches to learning can lead to the development of a more tailored approach to delivering anatomy teaching to medical students. This study investigated the relationship between learning style preferences, as measured by Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic (VARK) inventory style questionnaire and Honey and Mumford's learning style questionnaire (LSQ), and anatomy and clinical skills assessment performance at an Irish medical school. Additionally, mode of entry to medical school [undergraduate/direct-entry (DEM) vs. graduate-entry (GEM)], was examined in relation to individual learning style, and assessment results. The VARK and LSQ were distributed to first and second year DEM, and first year GEM students. DEM students achieved higher clinical skills marks than GEM students, but anatomy marks did not differ between each group. Several LSQ style preferences were shown to be weakly correlated with anatomy assessment performance in a program- and year-specific manner. Specifically, the "Activist" style was negatively correlated with anatomy scores in DEM Year 2 students (rs = -0.45, P = 0.002). The "Theorist" style demonstrated a weak correlation with anatomy performance in DEM Year 2 (rs = 0.18, P = 0.003). Regression analysis revealed that, among the LSQ styles, the "Activist" was associated with poorer anatomy assessment performance (P < 0.05), while improved scores were associated with students who scored highly on the VARK "Aural" modality (P < 0.05). These data support the contention that individual student learning styles contribute little to variation in academic performance in medical students. Anat Sci Educ 9: 391-399. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.
