95 - How to Train the Future Generation of Anatomy Teachers: A US Perspective

Poster Board Number: 95
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Claudia Mosley - The Ohio State University; Joanne Vakil - The Ohio State University; Dustin Savelli - The Ohio State University; Carson Lambert - The Ohio State University; Joy Balta - Point Loma University

Abstract Body : INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Anatomy instruction is evolving and it’s unclear whether new anatomy teachers will be prepared to thrive in a changing landscape. Current anatomy teachers have intimate knowledge of the anatomy arena and are best equipped to detail an ideal training path for future anatomy teachers. The purpose of this study was to survey US anatomy teachers as how to best train future anatomy teachers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was sent to 1764 anatomy teachers in the US after review of their AAA, AACA, or HAPS membership profiles. The 20-question survey consisted of Likert-type and free-response items. Responses to Likert-type items were scored from 1.00 (strongly disagree) to 5.00 (strongly agree) and respondents indicated their agreement level to statements regarding required training for future anatomy teachers. Likert-type items referencing the traditional anatomical subdisciplines were treated as part of an anatomical training scale and remaining Likert-type items were treated as part of an additional training scale. Cronbach’s alpha values revealed that both anatomical (0.83) and additional (0.78) training scales were reliable. Content validity evidence was provided via expert review from eight US anatomy faculty members. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent (667 of 1764) of invitees responded to the survey. Mean response values of anatomical training scale items ranged from 4.25 to 4.74 and mean response values of additional training scale items ranged from 3.31 to 4.40. Mean composite scores for professors were not significantly different from non-professors for anatomical (t = 0.67, p = 0.51) or additional (t = 0.08, p = 0.93) training scales. Mean composite scores for graduate/professional level professors were significantly different from professors who do not teach at the graduate/professional level for anatomical (U = 8768.50, p < .01) and additional (t = 3.734, p < .01) training scales. Subsequent analyses revealed significant differences between the groups regarding required embryology, gross anatomy, and neuroanatomy training as well as most aspects of the additional training scale. Thematic analysis of free-response items revealed that preparing future anatomy teachers demands individual-level nuance, as required coursework should be goal specific. CONCLUSION: Little agreement exists amongst anatomy professors regarding comprehensive preparations for students training to become anatomy teachers. SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATION: Making blanket training recommendations for future anatomy teachers is difficult, as the context in which they plan to teach will dictate the requisite training. Future anatomy teachers who are unsure of their destined teaching context would do well to train in a broad array of disciplines.