92 - Examining the Effectiveness of Table Leaders on Performance in Gross Anatomy

Poster Board Number: 92
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Yuefeng Lu - University of Mississippi Medical Center; Erin Norcross - University of Mississippi Medical Center; Norma Ojeda - University of Mississippi Medical Center; Nathan Tullos - University of Mississippi Medical Center; Gongchao Yang - University of Mississippi Medical Center

Abstract Body : Gross anatomy is considered one of the most challenging pre-clinical courses in medical school. One possible strategy to help ease stress in gross anatomy lab is to instigate table leaders. Previous research conducted by Kyrch (2005) determined that cooperative learning during labs helped to increase knowledge and communication. Furthermore, Pawlina et al. (2006) determined that gross anatomy table leaders who delegated roles and heavily participated in gross anatomy dissection had higher exam scores and more integrity and professionalism. Before class, the faculty divided up the 170 students to 34 tables based on sex, race/ethnicity, and previous anatomy experience so that the tables were balanced and had one member with exposure to anatomy. Once the semester began, each table chose a leader for their table; the tables were given full autonomy to choose their leader. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of table leaders during gross anatomy.

A retrospective cohort design was used for this study. After the semester was over, the researchers examined the grades on the practical exams. Means and standard deviations were calculated for each student, table, table leader, and group for each exam. Then, independent t-tests were run to examine differences between groups on exam scores as well as comparing table leaders and the rest of the table members. An ANOVA was run to compare differences among tables on the practical exams. After this, bivariate correlations were run to compare relationships between the two exam scores and a regression analysis was run to predict the score on exam two from exam one performance. Finally, a repeated measures factorial ANOVA was run to test the interaction of table number, group, and table leader on gross anatomy performance.



The t-tests comparing groups revealed no difference (t= -.062, p =.951. Similarly, the ANOVA comparing tables showed that no difference existed (F=.724; p= .766). The independent t-test examining table leaders and the other members was significant (t= 2.908; p= .004). Another statistically significant result was found in the bivariate correlations examining the relationship between exams; there was a strong, positive correlation between the two exam scores (r= .701; p< .001). The regression analysis predicting exam two score from exam one was also statistically significant (R² = .492; F= 159.658; p< .001). Finally, the only significant value from the repeated measures factorial ANOVA analysis was the impact from the table leader (F= 7.545; p= .007).



These results show that allowing the autonomy for students to choose a leader may make the students take more accountability for their learning and result in higher scores. Future research should focus on students’ perceptions of leaders and their impact on performance.