Learning Strategies Employed by Undergraduate Anatomy Students

Abstract

IntroductionHuman anatomy is a required course for many undergraduate health science programs. Studies show predictors of success in undergraduate anatomy include self‐efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and task value. They also show that effective learning tools for anatomy include the textbook, lectures, and regular examination of cadaveric donors. However, the laboratory components of courses vary widely in format and resources and it remains unclear how study strategies vary across courses. Therefore, this pilot study aims to assess the frequency of strategies used in an undergraduate anatomy course, how use varies across exams, and the relationship between learning strategies used and performance on lab exams.MethodsTwo surveys were distributed via email to 57 students enrolled in an undergraduate anatomy course prior to their first and second lab exams (LE1 and LE2, respectively). Each lab consists of a 30‐minute demonstration followed by 1.5 hours of independent study where students are encouraged to examine anatomical models and histology slides, but are not required to stay. Surveys asked students how frequently they used certain resources and specific learning techniques (e.g., attending academic mentoring sessions, visiting the tutor center, reading the lab manual before class) and included free responses to gauge students’ metacognition. The surveys were identical except for the free response questions. Wilcoxon Signed Rank test compared matched surveys while Spearman’s correlations investigated relationships between frequency of learning technique and exam scores.ResultsTwenty (35%) and 18 (32%) students completed the first and second surveys, respectively, and 10 completed both. Students who reported increased frequency of staying in the lab after the demonstration performed significantly better on LE1 and LE2 (p=0.036; p=0.007). Students who reported reading the associated textbook chapter prior to lab did significantly worse on LE2 than those who did not (p=0.008). Finally, students reported a significantly increased frequency in lecture attendance in the second survey (p=0.026). However, this was not associated with an increase in grades. In the metacognitive free responses, students generically reported their need to study more, of which only one stated how exactly they were going to do so.DiscussionThese results indicate that spending time in the lab is the most effective technique to perform well on lab exams and suggest that reading the associated textbook chapter may be detrimental. The latter finding may be indicative of a misalignment with the lecture and lab topics after LE1 or that reading may not be an effective use of time for the practical component of the course. Lastly, the only significant change in study habits following the first exam was attending lecture more, although this was ineffective in improving lab performance.SignificanceSpending time in undergraduate anatomy labs improves performance on laboratory examinations. Future research will focus on the relationships between the time spent on specific lab activities and exam performance as well as how metacognition is developed in undergraduate anatomy courses.