Evaluation of Undergraduate Anatomy Flipped Laboratory Sessions

Abstract

IntroductionThe flipped classroom approach (FCA) is a growing pedagogy in higher education. With this approach, students' first exposure to content is prior to class, commonly in the form of two learning modalities: textbook readings, or video recordings. Class time is then focused on the application of knowledge using methods such as discussions, or problem solving. The FCA has been implemented in many lecture‐based courses, but has yet to be fully evaluated for anatomical laboratory sessions. Thus, this cross‐over study sought to: i) compare student outcomes between flipped laboratory sessions (FLS), utilizing different learning modalities, and traditional didactic laboratory sessions (DLS), ii) evaluate student perceptions of both the flipped and didactic laboratory sessions, and iii) determine if students have a preferred learning modality for laboratory sessions.MethodologyStudents (n=92) were recruited from an undergraduate human anatomy course and placed in one of five study groups, with Western REB approval. Groups 1–4 were exposed to three FLS and one DLS, each focused on a different musculoskeletal region. The three FLS utilized one of the following learning modalities to provide content exposure prior to the laboratory session: a video recording, a 3D anatomy app, or a textbook reading. The DLS were not given content exposure prior to the laboratory session. Group 5 was only exposed to DLS with no prior content exposure for each session. A case‐assessment evaluated student outcomes following each flipped and/or didactic laboratory session. Pre‐ and post‐assessments, utilizing questions with a variety of cognition levels, evaluated the impact of the specific learning modality on student outcomes, and a questionnaire assessed student perceptions of the learning modalities following each session.ResultsThere were no differences between the FLS and DLS case‐assessment final scores. With the exception of the DLS, there were no significant changes between pre‐ and post‐assessment scores. The DLS resulted in significant improvements between pre‐ and post‐assessment scores (Difference 22.1%±2.4 p<0.05). Further analysis of performance on different cognitive level questions will determine if a specific learning modality better prepares students to correctly answer higher‐order thinking questions. Based on the student questionnaire, 41.9% of respondents ranked the didactic laboratory talk as their highest preferred learning modality; while 51.6% ranked the textbook reading as their least preferred learning modality. Further analysis of the questionnaire responses will provide insights into potential reasons for these preferences.ConclusionsUndergraduate anatomy students performed significantly better on assessments following a DLS, and preferred the DLS in comparison to the FLS. Didactic lectures, common in anatomy undergraduate courses, may be preferred due to students' familiarity with them; however, as the FCA gains popularity in higher education, student performance and perceptions may change with increased exposure. Furthermore, information collected from the assessments and student questionnaires will provide insight to course designers on methods to more effectively structure the content delivery in laboratory sessions for undergraduate anatomy students.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.