The Impact of a Novel Computer‐assisted Learning Resource on Student Learning in Undergraduate Dissection‐ and Prosection‐based Laboratory Environments

Abstract

Human anatomy is an essential subject for the medical and health sciences. Teaching and learning human anatomy each require large investments of time and resources; however, many institutions are challenged by limitations to both. As a result, the approaches used to teach human anatomy are constantly evolving to overcome these limitations and deliver meaningful learning opportunities. One common method for enhancing anatomy education is through computer‐assisted learning (CAL). The rapid growth and advancement of technology over recent decades has made the creation of CAL resources cheaper, easier, and more accessible, facilitating their rise as popular supplements to traditional approaches such as dissection (DI) and prosection (PRO). Accordingly, this study evaluated a novel CAL resource that was created for and introduced into an undergraduate DI and PRO human anatomy course at the University of Guelph between the Fall 2015 and 2016 semesters. The objective was to determine the influence of the resource on the students' academic experiences through evaluations of their course satisfaction (CS), contextual approaches to learning (SAL, characterized by deep [DA] and surface [SA] approach scores), and overall course performance.Participants reported their demographic information, CS, SAL, and use of the CAL resource through a combination of online and written surveys. Written feedback regarding their perceptions of the CAL resource was also collected and thematic analysis was performed to extract common themes. CS was compared between the Fall 2015 and Fall 2016 academic cohorts using the Mann‐Whitney U test. Comparisons of contextual SAL and performance were made using analyses of covariance with preferred SAL scores and cumulative grade averages as covariates, respectively. CAL resource use by students in both DI and PRO was then characterized and multiple linear regression analyses were used to determine correlations between their use of the resource and DA scores, SA scores, and course performance.Although the students' mean (± SEM) CS improved between the 2015 and 2016 cohorts in both DI (2015 = 74.15 ± 3.29, 2016 = 86.54 ± 1.94, p = 0.002) and PRO (2015 = 78.41 ± 5.95, 2016 = 93.55 ± 3.06, p = 0.051), the mean differences (± SEM) in DA (DI = −2.11 ± 0.53, p < 0.0005; PRO = −2.72 ± 1.03, p = 0.010) and SA (DI = 1.95 ± 0.55, p < 0.0005; PRO = 4.16 ± 1.10, p < 0.0005) scores suggested that the course presented a more surface‐oriented environment in 2016 than in 2015. Contextual SAL and course performance were not directly influenced by CAL resource use (p > 0.05); however, students in both DI (p = 0.001) and PRO (p = 0.025) who reported higher positive perceptions of the resource had higher DA scores.These findings indicated that using the CAL resource did not significantly enhance the students' learning experience. However, those who saw value in the resource and reported more positive perceptions toward it used deeper approaches to learning, which are representative of meaningful learning. Alongside the analyses of written student feedback, this suggests that the context in which CAL resources are to be disseminated may merit strong consideration before incorporating such resources into a course.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.