Breaking with tradition: A scoping meta‐analysis analyzing the effects of student‐centered and computer aided instruction on student performance in anatomy

Abstract

As the debate regarding anatomy education efficacy continues, student‐centered learning (SCL) and computer aided instruction (CAI) are garnering educators' attention. Although Freeman et al. (2014) demonstrated that active learning strategies increase student performance across STEM disciplines, summative analyses exploring how SCL and CAI affect knowledge gains in anatomy education, specifically, are lacking. The present study mirrored the protocol of prior anatomy education‐focused meta‐analyses (Wilson et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2016) to answer the question: “How effective are SCL and CAI at increasing student knowledge gains in anatomy compared to traditional didactic approaches?”Relevant studies published over the past 51 years were searched using five databases. Strict eligibility criteria were applied to the screening of titles and abstracts to discern their appropriateness for study inclusion. A summary effect size was estimated to determine the effects of SCL and CAI on anatomy performance outcomes. A moderator analysis was also performed to gauge how certain study features may have influenced pooled effects.Of the 3,035 records screened, 327 underwent full‐text review. Seven studies, which comprised 1,564 participants, were included in the SCL analysis. An additional 19 studies analyzed the effects of CAI in the context of 2,570 participants. Upon comparing SCL to traditional instruction, a small positive effect on learner performance was detected (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.24; p=0.006). Likewise, students with CAI exposure scored moderately higher than those with limited or no access to CAI (SMD=0.59; p=0.003). The moderator analysis also detected significant and sizable effects (SMD=1.44, [CI=0.57, 2.31], p=0.001) for supplemental CAI interventions (SMD=1.44, [CI=0.57, 2.31], p=0.001). Whereas no effect (p=0.16) was reported for replacement interventions.Overall, learners exposed to SCL or CAI modestly outperformed their more classically‐trained peers, which is consistent with related research conducted outside of the scope of anatomy education. Note that these results represent knowledge gains in the short‐term and do not provide evidence of pedagogical efficacy for long‐term retention. Lastly, the supplemental versus replacement intervention findings further underscore the need for educational efficacy studies to have proper controls.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.