Improving Online Interactions: Lessons from an Online Anatomy Course with a Laboratory for Undergraduate Students

Abstract

An online section of a face-to-face (F2F) undergraduate (bachelor's level) anatomy course with a prosection laboratory was offered in 2013-2014. Lectures for F2F students (353) were broadcast to online students (138) using Blackboard Collaborate (BBC) virtual classroom. Online laboratories were offered using BBC and three-dimensional (3D) anatomical computer models. This iteration of the course was modified from the previous year to improve online student-teacher and student-student interactions. Students were divided into laboratory groups that rotated through virtual breakout rooms, giving them the opportunity to interact with three instructors. The objectives were to assess student performance outcomes, perceptions of student-teacher and student-student interactions, methods of peer interaction, and helpfulness of the 3D computer models. Final grades were statistically identical between the online and F2F groups. There were strong, positive correlations between incoming grade average and final anatomy grade in both groups, suggesting prior academic performance, and not delivery format, predicts anatomy grades. Quantitative student perception surveys (273 F2F; 101 online) revealed that both groups agreed they were engaged by teachers, could interact socially with teachers and peers, and ask them questions in both the lecture and laboratory sessions, though agreement was significantly greater for the F2F students in most comparisons. The most common methods of peer communication were texting, Facebook, and meeting F2F. The perceived helpfulness of the 3D computer models improved from the previous year. While virtual breakout rooms can be used to adequately replace traditional prosection laboratories and improve interactions, they are not equivalent to F2F laboratories.

Exploring the Dimensions of Medical Student Engagement with Technology‐Enhanced Learning Resources and Assessing the Impact on Assessment Outcomes

“…Additional factors that have prompted this change in approach to curricula delivery, include: (1) a reassessment of the amount of time that is dedicated to anatomy learning in modernizing medical programs (Heylings, 2002;Drake et al, 2014;McBride and Drake, 2018); (2) the level of detailed anatomy necessary for undergraduate students (McKeown et al, 2003;Turney, 2007;Louw et al, 2009); and (3) the availability and logistics of maintaining an anatomy teaching facility that utilizes cadaveric material (McLachlan, 2004;McLachlan and Patten, 2006). It is in this context of a changing anatomy education landscape that numerous courses are now being described that fully integrate online material as a main learning tool used to deliver the required learning objectives (Wright, 2012;Attardi et al, 2016;Green and Whitburn, 2016;Attardi et al, 2018). This diffusion of TEL resources into anatomy education has occurred concurrently with the emergence of students believed to exhibit high levels of digital literacy (DiLullo et al, 2011).…”

Improving Virtual Learning Interactions: Reducing the Transactional Distance of Online Anatomy Modules

“…With much interest, we read the report by Attardi and colleagues comparing the synchronous online delivery of a systemic anatomy module to traditional didactic lecture and practical formats (Attardi et al, 2018). In an era of eroding student -lecturer communications and with online anatomy modules increasing in popularity (Guimarães et al, 2017), enhancing online interstudent and student-teacher interactions were a primary objective of the report.…”

“…The theoretical framework to improve inter-student and student-teacher interactions described by Attardi and colleagues was grounded in the theory of transactional distance (TD) (Attardi et al, 2018). Transactional distance is a pedagogical concept used to define the extent to which time and distance impact communications and interactions between student and teacher in a virtual learning environment (Moore, 1991;Moore and Kearsley, 2011).…”

“…It is possible that the lack of participation in the live chat and discussion boards may be due to student's irregular use of these platforms to communicate. For example, 81% and 80% of students chose not to attend the live lecture and laboratory sessions respectively (Attardi et al, 2018) even though the instant messaging platform was only available during these sessions. This suggests that simply incorporating new communications mediums into online courses will not be beneficial if they are not tailored to how students wish to communicate with academic staff.…”

“…The use of social media (e.g., Facebook), texting, and faceto-face interactions were the primary methods of inter-student communication reported by students in both online and faceto-face groups (Attardi et al, 2018). This raises the question, could TD for an online module be minimized by providing communication platforms (such as social media) that are already used by students?…”