Search

Metacognition is the ability to monitor and evaluate one's thoughts about learning and has been shown in some studies to improve the effectiveness of instructors. With dissection-based gross anatomy, instructors dynamically use their metacognition to monitor student learning and adapt their teaching at tableside. This study explored the metacognition of instructors as they taught in an anatomy course for allied health students. All instructors in a doctoral-level gross anatomy course at a single institution, including faculty, associate instructors (AIs), and teaching assistants (TAs), were invited to participate. At the start and end of the course, participating instructors completed pre- and post-questionnaires, which included the Teacher Metacognition Inventory (TMI), a 28-item survey that assesses metacognition as it relates to teaching. After labs, instructors completed reflective journals to provide deeper insight into their metacognition. Reflective journals were then thematically analyzed. Thirteen (52%) instructors participated in this study, including five faculty, three AI, and five TAs. Between the start and end of the course, total TMI score increased from 108.8 to 114.3 (p = 0.046). TAs exhibited the greatest change in total TMI score ([delta]mean = +11.4) followed by faculty ([delta]mean = +3.2) and AIs ([delta]mean = -0.7). Several themes were also identified. For example, TAs were more internally focused on content mastery, whereas faculty were externally focused on interpersonal factors (e.g., inclusive language). These insights into the metacognition of anatomy instructors, though limited in reliability and generalizability, may inform how to best support their professional development. Novices may benefit from content reviews, while experienced instructors may benefit from inclusivity or communications training.

Due to the rigor and pace of undergraduate medical anatomy courses, it is not uncommon for students to struggle and fail initially. However, repetition of coursework places an additional burden on the student, instructor, and institution. The purpose of this study was to compare the exam preparation strategies of repeating and non-repeating students to identify areas where struggling students can be supported prior to course failure. As part of their integrated anatomy course, first-year medical students at Indiana University completed a metacognitive Practice-Based Learning and Improvement (PBLI) assignment prior to and after their first exam. In the PBLIs, students were asked to reflect on their exam preparation strategies, confidence, and satisfaction, as well as their predicted and actual exam performance. PBLI responses from non-repeating and repeating students were then analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. A total of 1802 medical students were included in this study, including 1751 non-repeating and 51 repeating students. Based on their PBLI responses, non-repeating students were appropriately confident, somewhat satisfied, and more accurate when predicting their exam performance. Repeating students were overconfident, dissatisfied, and inaccurate when predicting their first exam performance on their initial, unsuccessful attempt but were more successful on their second, repeat attempt. Qualitative analysis revealed that repeating students aimed to improve their studying by modifying their existing study strategies and managing their time more effectively. In conjunction with other known risk factors, these insights into repeater and non-repeater exam preparation practices can help anatomy educators better identify and support potential struggling students.

Growth in the online survey market may be increasing response burden and possibly jeopardizing higher response rates. This meta-analysis evaluated survey trends over one decade (2011-2020) to determine: (1) changes in survey publication rates over time, (2) changes in response rates over time, (3) typical response rates within health sciences education research, (4) the factors influencing survey completion levels, and (5) common gaps in survey methods and outcomes reporting. Study I estimated survey publication trends between 2011 and 2020 using articles published in the top three health sciences education research journals. Study II searched the anatomical sciences education literature across six databases and extracted study/survey features and survey response rates. Time plots and a proportional meta-analysis were performed. Per 2926 research articles, the annual estimated proportion of studies with survey methodologies has remained constant, with no linear trend (p > 0.050) over time (Study I). Study II reported a pooled absolute response rate of 67% (95% CI = 63.9-69.0) across 360 studies ("k"), totaling 115,526 distributed surveys. Despite response rate oscillations over time, no significant linear trend (p = 0.995) was detected. Neither survey length, incentives, sponsorship, nor population type affected absolute response rates (p [greater than or equal to] 0.070). Only 35% (120 of 339) of studies utilizing a Likert scale reported evidence of survey validity. Survey response rates and the prevalence of studies with survey methodologies have remained stable with no linear trends over time. We recommend researchers strive for a typical absolute response rate of 67% or higher and clearly document evidence of survey validity for empirical studies.

Anatomy Nights is an international public engagement event created to bring anatomy and anatomists back to public spaces with the goal of increasing the public's understanding of their own anatomy by comparison with non-human tissues. The event consists of a 30-minute mini-lecture on the anatomy of a specific anatomical organ followed by a dissection of animal tissues to demonstrate the same organ anatomy. Before and after the lecture and dissection, participants complete research surveys designed to assess prior knowledge and knowledge gained as a result of participation in the event, respectively. This study reports the results of Anatomy Nights brain events held at four different venues in the UK and USA in 2018 and 2019. Two general questions were asked of the data: 1) Do participant post-event test scores differ from pre-event scores; and 2) Are there differences in participant scores based on location, educational background, and career. We addressed these questions using a combination of generalized linear models (R's glm function; R version 4.1.0 [R Core Team, 2014]) that assumed a binomial distribution and implemented a logit link function, as well as likelihood estimates to compare models. Survey data from 91 participants indicate that scores improve on post-event tests compared to pre-event tests, and these results hold irrespective of location, educational background, and career. In the pre-event tests, participants performed well on naming structures with an English name (frontal lobe and brainstem), and showed signs of improvement on other anatomical names in the post-test. Despite this improvement in knowledge, we found no evidence that participation in Anatomy Nights improved participants' ability to apply this knowledge to neuroanatomical contexts (e.g., stroke).