Emerging from the Pandemic: Q‐Method Analysis of the Return to Normalcy in Undergraduate Anatomy

Abstract

IntroductionAs a result of the Covid‐19 pandemic, anatomy education has had to adopt online modes of delivery. Previous research conducted on student views towards an online undergraduate anatomy and physiology course revealed areas of both strong preference (e.g., asynchronous lectures) and strong dislike (e.g., virtual specimens) within the online format. As restrictions are lessened and students transition back into in‐person learning, there exists the unique opportunity to examine the views of a consistent cohort of students towards virtual and in‐person modes of course delivery.ObjectiveThe current study seeks to compare the views of a single cohort of students experiencing both the online and in‐person anatomy and physiology course. To avoid the considerable drawbacks of course evaluations relying on Likert scales and traditional qualitative analysis, Q‐methodology is being used to measure the different perspectives of students between the two teaching modalities.MethodQ‐methodology will be used to assess opinions of students enrolled in the same undergraduate introductory anatomy and physiology course.A list of 41 opinion‐based statements regarding anatomy education was compiled. Students will sort the statements in a quasi‐normal grid based on their degree of agreement with the statements. The rankings will then undergo a by‐person factor analysis which categorizes students with shared perceptions into groups allowing educators to better understand and respond to the needs of students. Students will have the opportunity to respond to the survey at two points: at the end of the Fall 2021 semester after a primarily online mode of delivery, and at the end of the Winter 2022 semester following a primarily in person mode of delivery.ResultsData collection and analysis are anticipated to be completed in March of 2022.ConclusionWe hypothesize that Q‐methodology will enable us to discover student views specifically relevant to their experience in both the online and in‐person format of the course. We predict that this study will help identify areas of strength in both virtual and in‐person learning environments. These findings will be useful in integrating the strengths of both learning environments when developing future course offerings.