The researchers conducted a study to evaluate different multi-modal educational resources and strategies for teaching human anatomy. They hypothesized that more interactive lab activities would improve student engagement, knowledge acquisition, and skills. Students used modeling, dissection, and 3D systems during labs and engaged in independent learning, peer teaching, and peer learning. Surveys and observations found that students preferred more hands-on interactive activities like modeling and dissections over 3D systems. The researchers concluded that making activities more engaging, providing better initial instruction for challenging activities, and allowing for repetition could improve learning in the labs.

1. Introduction Results
References
Learning Human Anatomy: Evaluation of Multi-Modal Educational Resources & Strategies
J Sandoval1 and B Hurtt2
1. MSU Denver, Department of Biological Sciences, Denver, CO 80217
2. University of Denver, Biological Sciences, Denver, CO 80208
How do students learn best in science courses, particularly a human anatomy
course? We set out to gain a deeper understanding of this question in our research
at The University of Denver (DU) in the Human Anatomy (HA) laboratory. This course
is offered during a 10 week quarter system, and serves primarily traditional age
college students (18-22 y/o).
HYPOTHESIS: The more interactive a lab activity, the more it will improve student
engagement, knowledge acquisition, long-term retention, and professional skills.
We designed the lab experience to address the various stages and goals for learning
content, skills, application, communication and teamwork, as identified in Table 1,
Student Educational Growth Goals (Gopalan et al, in review).
Discussion
 Preliminary research study conducted in one
(1) science lab course.
 During Independent Learning (IL), students
preferred interactive modeling the most,
cat/sheep dissections second, and the 3D
system was the least preferred modality.
 Hands-on interactive strategies where
engagement was greater were preferred.
 Difficulty of learning cat dissections and the
3D system (skill acquisition) appeared to
influence the results.
 Better / enhanced early instruction for more
challenging modalities would likely improve
engagement and learning opportunities.
 Availability of cat dissection and 3D system
directly influenced the results (only 1/lab).
 Repetition and familiarity with skills,
processes, and expectations improves IL, PT.
 Effectiveness of modality may be highly
influenced by when it is introduced in the
learning sequence for IL.
 Complexity of topic appeared to influence
preferred learning modality
 Peer teaching (PT) after IL seems to have
more value than peer learning; promotes
long term retention.
 Expectation of teaching others improves IL.
 Observations of engagement and knowledge
acquisition during IL not always consistent
with student feedback.
Justification for instructional design changes:
• Many current education practices are inconsistent with what research suggests could
promote learning through more effective teaching (O’Connor et al., 2009)
• Teaching and learning must be made more active to engage undergraduates, and to
give them an enduring sense of power and beauty of creative inquiry. (National
Research Council, 2003)
• Students learn best when they are engaged in the activity they are completing
(Varvasky, Matthews, & Hodgson, 2013)
• Students who engaged in peer-teaching outperformed students in the same course
who did not (Tsaushu et al., 2012)
• Teaching activities identified by students as developing broadest number of skills were
laboratory classes/tutorials (Seymour, Wiese, Hunter, & Daffinrud, 2000)
• Students need to be trained for careers of the future, including using technology
(http://www.fastcompany.com/3033593/the-future-of-work/why-the-education-economy-is-the-next-big-thing-for-the-american-workforc)
Acknowledgements
Dr. Jeff Simpson, Professor, Biology, MSU Denver: Advisor (JS)
DU Natural Science and Mathematics Division – Olin Faculty
Development Grant to BH.
Stage Goal #1 Goal #2 OUTCOME
1 Understand the nature of science
Create foundational framework
of knowledge
Interpret, construct, connect
knowledge
Stage Goal #1 Goal #2 OUTCOME
2 Long-term retention of knowledge Skill acquisition Competency/Mastery
Stage Goal #1 Goal #2 OUTCOME
3 Engage in real world science issues Application, Analysis, Critical thinking Informed decision making
Stage Goal #1 Goal #2 OUTCOME
4 Accurate & meaningful communication Promote Teamwork
Professional preparation
and development
© zSpace
© B Hurtt © B Hurtt © B Hurtt
Methods
• Students worked in groups of 4 or 2 (depending on specific lab activity), and self-selected working groups.
• During the last 8 weeks of the 10 week course, students utilized:
 Three (3) educational modalities: modeling, dissection, 3D;
 Three (3) education strategies: independent learning (IL),
peer teaching (PT), and peer learning (PL) for each modality;
 Three (3) assessment approaches: survey, F2F, lab observation
(35) (4) (1)
• Frequency of modality use (# of labs in which students used each modality):
Modeling: 4 labs Dissection: 2 labs 3D: 2 labs Peer teaching: 8 labs
• Labs are taught directly by Graduate student Teaching Assistants (GTAs)
• All data collection was approved by the DU Institutional Review Board (IRB).
• Online survey was modified from the On-line Student Assessment of their Learning Gains (SALG) by Seymour,
Wiese, Hunter, and Daffinrud (2000).
• Design of face to face interview (F2F) questions was modified from the Science students skills inventory (SSSI)
by Mathews and Hodgson, (2012).
• Student engagement analysis was based upon Varsavsky, Matthews, and Hodgson (2013).
Modeling Dissection 3D
51% 46% 3%
Interactive = 9
Visualization= 7
Relational = 2
Real life rep.= 9
Testing = 6
Hands on = 2
Could visualize
structures well
Very
well
Moderately
well
Slightly
well
Not well
at all
23% 43% 14% 6%
How much labs improved understanding:
• “I thought the labs were actually incredibly
useful. I think that was where I definitely
learned the structures involved in anatomy.”
• “I think it also allowed for more time to talk
about certain things in more detail because
in class you talk about big things but in the
lab you get to touch the model and feel the
model, know this muscle…”
Great
Deal
Some-
what
Very
Little
None at
all
75% 25% 0% 0%
Confidence in ability to communicate
and demonstrate anatomy knowledge.
How well did the use of cat and sheep dissections
help you understand the human structures?
Which modality best prepared you for lab
exams? Why?
American Association for The Advancement of Science. National Institute of Science Education. (2009).
Vision and change in undergraduate biology education a call to action. Washington, DC: O’Connor,
C., Withers, M., Donovan, S., Hoskins, S.G., Lopatto, D., Varma-Nelson, P., . . . Matyas, M.
Bureau of Sociological Research. National Institute of Science Education. (2000). Creating a Better
Mousetrap: On-line Student Assessment of their Learning Gains. San Francisco, CA: Seymour, E.S.,
Wiese, D.J.W., Hunter, A.H., Daffinrud, S.M.D.
Gopalan, C., Hurtt, B., Mello-Carpes,P. Innovative Use of Technology in Teaching and Student
Assessment of Physiology. In review.
Matthews, K.E.M., Hodgson, Y.H. (2012). The Science Students Skills Inventory: Capturing Graduate
Perceptions of Their Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Innovation in Science and
Mathematics Education, Volume 20 (1), 24-43.
National Research Council (NRC). 2003a. Bio 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future
research biologists. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Tsaushu, M.T., Tal, T.T., Sagy, O.S., Kali, Y.K., Gepstein, S.G., Zilberstein, D.Z. (2012). Peer Learning and
Support of Technology in an Undergraduate Biology Course to Enhance Deep Learning. Life Sciences
Education, Volume 11 (Winter 2012), 402-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0042
Varsavsky, C.V., Matthews, K.E.M., Hodgson, Y.V. (2014) Perceptions of Science Graduating Students on
their Learning Gains. International Journal of Science Education, Volume 36 (6), 929-951.
“I’d say that the lab
didn’t help with that as
much as the lecture.
!!