143 - Investigating the Influence of Dissection in a Three-tiered, Rotational Dissection Laboratory Format on Students’ Bellringer Assessment Performance

Poster Board Number: 143
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Lorraine Jadeski - University of Guelph

Abstract Body : Rotational dissection laboratory formats (RDLFs) enable subsequent laboratory groups to dissect anatomical regions, resulting in the use of fewer resources, dissection progression efficiency, and availability of resources for alternate projects.









Economic advantages justify the adoption of RDLFs to mitigate constraints faced by human anatomy programs; however, are students disadvantaged by the inability to dissect each structure? Results in the literature have demonstrated increases, decreases, or no significant differences in academic performance between cohorts experiencing RDLFs in comparison to traditional dissection laboratory formats (TDLFs). Within cohorts, studies have demonstrated no significant differences in academic performance between laboratory groups, but that dissection overall is associated with increased performance. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between dissection of structures and correctness in item-response pertaining to corresponding structures in bellringer assessments.









Participants (n = 169) were undergraduate students enrolled in a human anatomy course at the University of Guelph in Fall 2022. Participants completed an adapted Study Habits Questionnaire, which required individuals to indicate their dissection participation ranging from “I dissected every laboratory” to “I never dissected”. To account for differences in visuospatial ability, a deemed predictor of success in anatomy assessments, participants completed the revised Vandenberg & Kuse Mental Rotations Test.









Student performance was evaluated using 45 items from two bellringers assessing back and upper limb, and thorax content, respectively. Item-responses were coded as binary outcome variables (0 = incorrect, 1 = correct). Dissections completed by laboratory groups were objectively assessed by two research assistants using checklists; structure dissections were coded as binary predictor variables (0 = did not dissect, 1 = dissected). Structure dissections of participants who selected “I never dissected” and/or were absent from laboratories were coded to 0.









Binary logistic regressions were conducted for each structure; dissection of structures did not increase the odds of the item-response outcome being correct for any of the 45 items (p > 0.05).









This study demonstrated that structure dissection was not associated with item-response correctness in bellringer examinations. Provision of supplementary material within the course as well as opportunity for students to identify and interact with content dissected by preceding laboratory groups may have mitigated differences in dissection opportunities. To help alleviate constraints without compromising academic performance, educators can confidently shift to a RDLF.