Educator perspectives on non-technical, discipline-independent skill acquisition: An international, qualitative study.

Gross anatomy education utilizing body donors and human specimens assists the acquisition of non-traditional, discipline-independent skills (NTDIS) such as teamwork, communication, and leadership. Alterations to anatomy curricula, such as those resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, likely impact NTDIS acquisition, yet how this manifests is unclear. This study, therefore, explored anatomy educator perspectives on NTDIS acquisition as a response to changes in teaching delivery. Gross anatomy educators across different countries were recruited and took part in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews that were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed using the framework method. Basic statistical analyses were performed on demographic and categorical data. Fifteen educators from five continents were interviewed (average length 32.5 min, range 17-51 min). Educator experience ranged from 0-4 years (n = 3) to 20+ years (n = 7). Most taught using dissection (n = 14) with prosection use (n = 13) also common. Themes relating to NTDIS included expected content (respect for donors, teamwork, communication skills, humanistic values), assessable content, assessment challenges, and impact of curriculum changes; NTDIS unique to anatomy education included cultural, ethical, and social considerations around dead bodies, including boundaries, and social norms. Informed by curriculum alterations during the COVID-19 pandemic, this first empirical study of anatomy educator perspectives on NTDIS highlights the potentially adverse educational impacts of decreased interaction with body donors and human specimens on NTDIS acquisition and difficulties with NTDIS assessment. Findings support gross anatomy education as unique in providing NTDIS that cannot easily be replicated elsewhere. Recommendations around NTDIS-specific educator competencies and promoting NTDIS are provided.

Correlating Spatial Ability With Anatomy Assessment Performance: A Meta-Analysis.

Interest in spatial ability has grown over the past few decades following the emergence of correlational evidence associating spatial aptitude with educational performance in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The research field at large and the anatomy education literature on this topic are mixed. In an attempt to generate consensus, a meta-analysis was performed to objectively summarize the effects of spatial ability on anatomy assessment performance across multiple studies and populations. Relevant studies published within the past 50 years (1969-2019) were retrieved from eight databases. Study eligibility screening was followed by a full-text review and data extraction. Use of the Mental Rotations Test (MRT) was required for study inclusion. Out of 2,450 screened records, 15 studies were meta-analyzed. Seventy-three percent of studies (11 of 15) were from the United States and Canada, and the majority (9 of 15) studied professional students. Across 15 studies and 1,245 participants, spatial ability was weakly associated with anatomy performance (rpooled  = 0.240; CI at 95% = 0.09, 0.38; P = 0.002). Performance on spatial and relationship-based assessments (i.e., practical assessments and drawing tasks) was correlated with spatial ability, while performance on assessments utilizing non-spatial multiple-choice items was not correlated with spatial ability. A significant sex difference was also observed, wherein males outperformed females on spatial ability tasks. Given the role of spatial reasoning in learning anatomy, educators are encouraged to consider curriculum delivery modifications and a comprehensive assessment strategy so as not to disadvantage individuals with low spatial ability.

STEM crisis teaching: Curriculum design with e-learning tools.

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent social distancing protocols have accelerated the shift to online teaching across the globe. In Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) programs this means a shift from face-to-face laboratory instruction to self-directed learning with e-learning tools. Unfortunately, selecting and integrating an e-learning tool into a curriculum can be daunting. This article highlights key questions and practical suggestions instructors should consider in choosing the most effective option for their course and learners.

The skeletons in our closet: E-learning tools and what happens when one side does not fit all.

In the anatomical sciences, e-learning tools have become a critical component of teaching anatomy when physical space and cadaveric resources are limited. However, studies that use empirical evidence to compare their efficacy to visual-kinesthetic learning modalities are scarce. The study examined how a visual-kinesthetic experience, involving a physical skeleton, impacts learning when compared with virtual manipulation of a simple two-dimensional (2D) e-learning tool, A.D.A.M. Interactive Anatomy. Students from The University of Western Ontario, Canada (n = 77) participated in a dual-task study to: (1) investigate if a dual-task paradigm is an effective tool for measuring cognitive load across these different learning modalities; and (2) to assess the impact of knowledge recall and spatial ability when using them. Students were assessed using knowledge scores, Stroop task reaction times, and mental rotation test scores. Results demonstrated that the dual-task paradigm was not an effective tool for measuring cognitive load across different learning modalities with respect to kinesthetic learning. However, our study highlighted that handing physical specimens yielded major, positive impacts on performance that a simple commercial e-learning tool failed to deliver (P < 0.001). Furthermore, students with low spatial ability were significantly disadvantaged when they studied the bony joint and were tested on contralateral images (P = 0.046, R = 0.326). This suggests that, despite limbs being mirror images, students should be taught the anatomy of, as well as procedures on, both sides of the human body, enhancing the ability of all students, regardless of spatial ability, to take anatomical knowledge into the clinic and perform successfully. Anat Sci Educ 10: 570-588. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.

Academic nightmares: Predatory publishing.

Academic researchers who seek to publish their work are confronted daily with a barrage of e-mails from aggressive marketing campaigns that solicit them to publish their research with a specialized, often newly launched, journal. Known as predatory journals, they often promise high editorial and publishing standards, yet their exploitive business models, poor quality control, and minimal overall transparency victimize those researchers with limited academic experience and pave the way for low-quality articles that threaten the foundation of evidence-based research. Understanding how to identify these predatory journals requires thorough due diligence on the part of the submitting authors, and a commitment by reputable publishers, institutions, and researchers to publicly identify these predators and eliminate them as a threat to the careers of young scientists seeking to disseminate their work in scholarly journals. Anat Sci Educ 10: 392-394. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.

Educational software usability: Artifact or Design?

Online educational technologies and e-learning tools are providing new opportunities for students to learn worldwide, and they continue to play an important role in anatomical sciences education. Yet, as we shift to teaching online, particularly within the anatomical sciences, it has become apparent that e-learning tool success is based on more than just user satisfaction and preliminary learning outcomes-rather it is a multidimensional construct that should be addressed from an integrated perspective. The efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction with which a user can navigate an e-learning tool is known as usability, and represents a construct which we propose can be used to quantitatively evaluate e-learning tool success. To assess the usability of an e-learning tool, usability testing should be employed during the design and development phases (i.e., prior to its release to users) as well as during its delivery (i.e., following its release to users). However, both the commercial educational software industry and individual academic developers in the anatomical sciences have overlooked the added value of additional usability testing. Reducing learner frustration and anxiety during e-learning tool use is essential in ensuring e-learning tool success, and will require a commitment on the part of the developers to engage in usability testing during all stages of an e-learning tool's life cycle. Anat Sci Educ 10: 190-199. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.

E-learning, dual-task, and cognitive load: The anatomy of a failed experiment.

The rising popularity of commercial anatomy e-learning tools has been sustained, in part, due to increased annual enrollment and a reduction in laboratory hours across educational institutions. While e-learning tools continue to gain popularity, the research methodologies used to investigate their impact on learning remain imprecise. As new user interfaces are introduced, it is critical to understand how functionality can influence the load placed on a student's memory resources, also known as cognitive load. To study cognitive load, a dual-task paradigm wherein a learner performs two tasks simultaneously is often used, however, its application within educational research remains uncommon. Using previous paradigms as a guide, a dual-task methodology was developed to assess the cognitive load imposed by two commercial anatomical e-learning tools. Results indicate that the standard dual-task paradigm, as described in the literature, is insensitive to the cognitive load disparities across e-learning tool interfaces. Confounding variables included automation of responses, task performance tradeoff, and poor understanding of primary task cognitive load requirements, leading to unreliable quantitative results. By modifying the secondary task from a basic visual response to a more cognitively demanding task, such as a modified Stroop test, the automation of secondary task responses can be reduced. Furthermore, by recording baseline measures for the primary task as well as the secondary task, it is possible for task performance tradeoff to be detected. Lastly, it is imperative that the cognitive load of the primary task be designed such that it does not overwhelm the individual's ability to learn new material.

The anatomy of E-Learning tools: Does software usability influence learning outcomes?

Reductions in laboratory hours have increased the popularity of commercial anatomy e-learning tools. It is critical to understand how the functionality of such tools can influence the mental effort required during the learning process, also known as cognitive load. Using dual-task methodology, two anatomical e-learning tools were examined to determine the effect of their design on cognitive load during two joint learning exercises. A.D.A.M. Interactive Anatomy is a simplistic, two-dimensional tool that presents like a textbook, whereas Netter's 3D Interactive Anatomy has a more complex three-dimensional usability that allows structures to be rotated. It was hypothesized that longer reaction times on an observation task would be associated with the more complex anatomical software (Netter's 3D Interactive Anatomy), indicating a higher cognitive load imposed by the anatomy software, which would result in lower post-test scores. Undergraduate anatomy students from Western University, Canada (n = 70) were assessed using a baseline knowledge test, Stroop observation task response times (a measure of cognitive load), mental rotation test scores, and an anatomy post-test. Results showed that reaction times and post-test outcomes were similar for both tools, whereas mental rotation test scores were positively correlated with post-test values when students used Netter's 3D Interactive Anatomy (P = 0.007), but not when they used A.D.A.M. Interactive Anatomy. This suggests that a simple e-learning tool, such as A.D.A.M. Interactive Anatomy, is as effective as more complicated tools, such as Netter's 3D Interactive Anatomy, and does not academically disadvantage those with poor spatial ability. Anat Sci Educ 9: 378-390. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.

Head to head: The role of academic competition in undergraduate anatomical education.

Competition is a key element in many educational games and is often adopted by educators in an effort to motivate and excite their students. Yet, the use of academic competition in educational institutions remains the subject of much debate. Opponents argue that academic competition causes an increase in student anxiety and divides their attention. However, if the contexts of academic competition are defined, could the inclusion of a game-like competition in a university course be a viable and beneficial method of engaging students? Students (n = 67) were recruited from an undergraduate human anatomy course at Western University. Using a crossover design, students were exposed to a competitive tournament either at the time of their first term test or second term test. The anatomical knowledge of participating students was assessed prior to the start of the study using a baseline anatomy test. Following treatment with an online competitive anatomy tournament, student's term test grades and final course grades were analyzed. Both the second term test scores (F(2,64) = 3.743, P = 0.029) and overall course grades (F(2,64) = 3.356, P = 0.041) were found to be significantly different (P < 0.05) for individuals in the competitive group when compared to their non-competing peers. As suggested by the literature where organized competition in the classroom correlates to improved academic performance, this study uncovered significant results pertaining to increased academic performance resulting from participating in tournament-based competition. In light of these positive results, further exploration of the effects of academic competition on student performance across age brackets and disciplines is warranted.