Interest in spatial ability has grown over the past few decades following the emergence of correlational evidence associating spatial aptitude with educational performance in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The research field at large and the anatomy education literature on this topic are mixed. In an attempt to generate consensus, a meta‐analysis was performed to objectively summarize the effects of spatial ability on anatomy assessment performance across multiple studies and populations. Relevant studies published within the past 50 years (1969–2019) were retrieved from eight databases. Study eligibility screening was followed by a full‐text review and data extraction. Use of the Mental Rotations Test (MRT) was required for study inclusion. Out of 2,450 screened records, 15 studies were meta‐analyzed. Seventy‐three percent of studies (11 of 15) were from the United States and Canada, and the majority (9 of 15) studied professional students. Across 15 studies and 1,245 participants, spatial ability was weakly associated with anatomy performance (rpooled = 0.240; CI at 95% = 0.09, 0.38; P = 0.002). Performance on spatial and relationship‐based assessments (i.e., practical assessments and drawing tasks) was correlated with spatial ability, while performance on assessments utilizing non‐spatial multiple‐choice items was not correlated with spatial ability. A significant sex difference was also observed, wherein males outperformed females on spatial ability tasks. Given the role of spatial reasoning in learning anatomy, educators are encouraged to consider curriculum delivery modifications and a comprehensive assessment strategy so as not to disadvantage individuals with low spatial ability.

Many studies that evaluate the introduction of technology in the classroom focus on student performance and student evaluations. This study focuses on instructor evaluation of the introduction of virtual microscopy into an undergraduate anatomy class. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with graduate teaching assistants (TA) and analyzed through qualitative methods. This analysis showed that the teaching assistants found the virtual microscope to be an advantageous change in the classroom. They cite the ease of use of the virtual microscope, access to histology outside of designated laboratory time, and increasing student collaboration in class as the primary advantages. The teaching assistants also discuss principal areas where the use of the virtual microscope can be improved from a pedagogical standpoint, including requiring students to spend more time working on histology in class.

Purpose The number of medical science educators, who commit the majority of their time to education‐related duties, is ostensibly on the rise. Given the growing role separation between teaching and biomedical research faculty in medical education, it is timely to examine how institutions communicate their promotion criteria related to educational excellence and scholarship. This study investigates the extent to which medical schools' promotion criteria align with published standards for documenting educational activities. Methods Promotion guidelines from U.S. allopathic and osteopathic medical schools were collected mostly from institutional websites and were systematically analyzed according to a predefined data extraction rubric adapted from previously published standards for documenting educational activities. After 10 researchers each independently reviewed and extracted data from 1/5 of all guidelines, researchers compared their findings in pairs and reached consensus on all identified discrepancies prior to final data submission. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of cited promotion criteria. Results Promotion‐related documents were retrieved for 110 (59%) of the 185 allopathic and osteopathic U.S. medical schools. Fifteen percent of schools were cited as lacking explicit direction for education focused faculty to attain academic advancement. Across seven education‐related domains, ‘educational measurement and evaluation’ was the least represented with only 37% of schools referencing this domain in their guidelines. The other domains including teaching, curriculum/program development, mentoring/advising, educational leadership/administration, research/scholarship, and service were referenced by at least 59% of schools. Overall, only 20% of schools were judged to have above average or very comprehensive criteria for excellence in education. Conclusions While most medical schools acknowledge education within their promotion criteria, only three fully embraced the educational excellence standards recommended in the literature. These data should be concerning to current teaching faculty who may be evaluated for promotion based on vague and/or incomplete promotion criteria. With greater awareness of how educational excellence is currently documented and how promotion criteria can be improved, more schools may be compelled to embrace change and to follow recommended best practices. Support or Funding Information None This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

No abstract

Rationale Spatial ability has been defined theoretically as ‘the ability to make use of simulated mental imagery (often in conjunction with currently perceived images) to solve problems'. Despite being among the most investigated factors of human cognitive functioning, spatial ability has been relegated to a secondary status within human intelligence research due to inconsistent evidence supporting spatial skills as predictors for educational success. Recently, however, interest in spatial ability within the anatomical community has grown, due to correlational evidence associating spatial aptitude with educational performance in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. As a result, a substantial volume of contemporary research has focused on further uncovering the role that spatial ability plays in anatomical knowledge acquisition and retention. As such, this current study utilized a systematic review (to be followed by a meta‐analysis) to identify the extent to which spatial ability affects performance in anatomy. Methods Relevant studies published within the past 50 years (2019–1969) were searched for across eight databases. Predetermined eligibility criteria were applied to the screening of titles and abstracts to discern their appropriateness for study inclusion. Study outcomes were first thematically analyzed (reported herein) and will be followed by a true meta‐analysis. Results A total of 2,458 records were screened, 59 underwent full‐text review, and 21 studies (k) were included for final analysis. Of these studies, 57% (12 of 21) were from North America, most (15 of 21) studied graduate/professional students, and all were published in 2000 or later, except for one study from 1985. Most studies (71%; 15 of 21) evaluated the association between spatial ability and anatomy performance using the Mental Rotations Test (k=14) and some form of a practical assessment of anatomical knowledge (k=15). Of the 15 correlational studies 6, 7, and 2 reported significant, non‐significant, and inconclusive findings respectively. The prevalence of conflicting studies further necessitates the need for a meta‐analysis, which is currently underway. Conclusions High spatial ability is often associated with better scores in anatomy, but some studies show no association. In the absence of a meta‐analysis, it is challenging to interpret the literature to determine the significance of practical implications, such as providing students with different study techniques or presentation modalities depending on their level of spatial ability. Only a meta‐analysis will better inform our understanding of the current literature.