Student Evaluation of a Learning Enhancement in Anatomy Program (LEAP) during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Background and objective: The pandemic acted as an accelerator for the development of online teaching formats in anatomy and histology worldwide. The authors introduce a bridging program that reinforces the knowledge and understanding of gross and correlative anatomy and histology acquired in a virtual environment in preparation for its future clinical application. The study aims to evaluate the Learning Enhancement in Anatomy Program (LEAP) conducted among first-year medical students at the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila.

Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study aims to determine the initial experience of implementing a learning enhancement program and assess areas for its improvement. An internally validated questionnaire was given to students after the program to gauge students' reactions (Kirkpatrick Level 1 evaluation). Pre- and post-tests were administered to evaluate knowledge acquisition (Kirkpatrick Level 2 evaluation). Short-term behavioral peer evaluation (Kirkpatrick Level 3 evaluation) was also instituted.

Results: One hundred fifty-two (152) students participated in the study. General reactions from students to the LEAP were consistently positive, with a steady majority of the students rating '5' or a 'Strongly Agree' to positive statements regarding the program. Higher ratings for more traditional teaching methods, such as cadavers, formalinized specimens, and bones, compared to virtual systems were apparent. However, inter-student variation in preference for teaching modalities was observed. All stations of the LEAP were evaluated satisfactorily, with most gross anatomy stations rated higher than histology stations. A significant increase was noted in the total post-test scores compared to pre-test scores. This improvement in test scores was observed in the anatomy and histology subcategories and in six of the seven organ system modules. Perceived behavioral outcomes were also generally positive.

Conclusion: The LEAP is a worthwhile endeavor, garnering overwhelmingly positive reactions and a significant improvement in test scores. Future studies are necessary to fine-tune teaching and training in a blended learning environment.

Keywords: COVID-19; anatomy; medical education; program evaluation.

Figure 1

Distribution of scores given by LEAP participants regarding the overall assessment of the administration and organization of the program. (1-2: Unsatisfactory, 3: Neutral, 4-5: Satisfactory)

Figure 2

Distribution and median of scores given by LEAP participants for the teaching materials and methods. (1-2: Unsatisfactory, 3: Neutral, 4-5: Satisfactory) Compared to Skills Station – a: P < 0.0001 Compared to Plastinated Specimens – b: P < 0.0001, b2: P = 0.0100 Compared to Models – c₁: P < 0.0001, c₂: P = 0.0002, c₃: P = 0.0003 Compared to Formalinized Specimens – d₁: P < 0.0001, d₂: P = 0.0028 Compared to Cadavers – e: P < 0.0001 Compared to Bones – f₁: P < 0.0001, f₂: P = 0.0022.

Figure 3

Distribution and median of scores for (A) gross anatomy and (B) histology stations. (1-2: Unsatisfactory, 3: Neutral, 4-5: Satisfactory) Compared to OS 202 anatomy station – a₁: P =0.0119, a₂: P = 0.0184 Compared to HD 201 anatomy station – b₁: P =0.0002, b₂: P =0.0024, b₃: P = 0.0273, b₄: P = 0.0048, b₅: P = 0.0003 Compared to OS 203 anatomy station – c₁: P < 0.0001, c₂: P = 0.0002 Compared to OS 204 or OS 205 anatomy station – d: P < 0.0001 Compared to OS 206 anatomy station – e₁: P = 0.0076, e₂: P = 0.0108.

Figure 4

Histograms of Pre-test and Post-test Scores of LEAP participants.

Figure 5

Perceived behavioral assessment of the program. (1-2: Unsatisfactory, 3: Neutral, 4-5: Satisfactory)