Using Q Methodology to Evaluate Online Anatomy Education: Learning in a COVID‐19 Context

Abstract

Introduction Anatomy education traditionally relies on in‐person learning and experiential skill development. However, the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic has forced many courses to adopt online modes of delivery, and anatomy is no exception. The question now is whether anatomy education has successfully made the transition to the digital space, particularly with respect to the perception of learners. Objective The current study seeks to understand how students view an online, introductory anatomy and physiology course. Traditional methods of course evaluation include Likert scales and open‐ended responses; however, such methods fail to consider both the diversity of learners and the need for course‐specific feedback. Thus, we used the emerging area of Q methodology as a tool for course evaluation. Hypothesis We hypothesize that Q methodology will enable us to uncover student opinions which are specifically relevant to their online course experience. Methods Q methodology can be used to identify groups of learners with shared perceptions, allowing educators to better understand and respond to the needs of students. Studies consist of three phases: survey instrument development, data collection, and analysis/interpretation. First, a list of opinion‐based statements regarding anatomy education are selected. Next, students rank statements based on their level of agreement. Finally, rankings undergo a by‐person factor analysis to categorize students into distinct groups with shared perceptions. Results Data was collected from 106 students at McMaster University. Factor analysis revealed three distinct subgroups within the cohort. Group 1 (n = 45) felt they needed more time on their evaluations and lectures did not cover an appropriate amount of content. Group 2 (n = 30) did not enjoy synchronous tutorials or labs. Group 3 (n = 21) overall was satisfied with course delivery. Certain perceptions were also shared among all three groups. There was a consensus among students that they generally disliked online learning compared to in‐person learning, with particular concern surrounding the use of virtual specimens and bellringer exams. Students, however, appreciated the availability of asynchronous lectures as a mode of online content delivery. Age, sex, program, education history, and anticipated grade were not associated with cohort subgroupings. Conclusion Interestingly, results of this study recognize similar course strengths/limitations noted in in‐person classes (e.g., value of in‐person laboratories and assessment concerns reported elsewhere), but also highlight key areas of strength (asynchronous lectures) and limitation (use of digital resources) specific to the online environment, which will be important considerations for future online offerings. Next steps for the current study include repeating the evaluation in the winter semester to see if opinions are stable across groups of learners and individual students.

Promoting more future‐ready anatomy education after the Covid‐19 pandemic: A scoping review

“…Note : Numbers in superscripts represent the cited resources: 1 Alsharif et al (2020); 2 Cuschieri and Calleja Agius (2020); 3 Evans et al (2020); 4 Franchi (2020); 5 Longhurst et al (2020); 6 Pacheco et al (2020); 7 Pather et al (2020); 8 Srinivasan (2020); 9 Albalushi et al (2021); 10 Banovac et al (2021); 11 Baptiste (2021); 12 Bernigau et al (2021); 13 Border et al (2021); 14 Böckers et al (2021); 15 Chan et al (2021); 16 Cheng et al (2021); 17 Choudhary (2021); 18 Cortese and Frascio (2021); 19 Chytas et al (2021); 20 De Carvalho Filho et al (2021); 21 Dulohery et al (2021); 22 Evans and Pawlina (2021); 23 Flynn et al (2021); 24 Griepp et al (2021); 25 Harrell et al (2021); 26 Harmon et al (2021); 27 Iqbal et al (2022); 28 Iwanaga et al (2021); 29 Iwanaga et al (2021); 30 John et al (2021); 31 Kurtulmus‐Yilmaz and Önöral (2022); 32 Mahdy and Sayed (2021); 33 McWatt (2021); 34 Naidoo et al (2021); 35 Natsis et al (2021); 36 Ortadeveci et al (2021); 37 Owolabi and Bekele (2021); 38 Patra et al (2021); 39 Patra et al (2021); 40 Sadeesh et al (2021); 41 Saini et al (2021); 42 Saverino and Zarcone (2021); 43 Şenol et al (2021); 44 Singal et al (2021); 45 Sotgiu et al (2021); 46 Srivastava et al (2021); 47 Stunden et al (2021); 48 Tg Muda et al (2021); 49 Thom et al (2021); 50 Totlis et al (2021); 51 Tucker and Anderson (2021); 52 Vidya et al (2021); 53 Yan et al (2021); 54 Yoo et al (…”

“…Nevertheless, online questions—including multiple‐choice questions—were a flexible assessment method for cognitive learning outcomes (Sotgiu et al, 2021; McWatt, 2021). Despite high‐quality photographs and diagrams online, students preferred face‐to‐face, practical examinations (Harmon et al, 2021; Sadeesh et al, 2021; Saini et al, 2021). Moreover, since laboratory and practical assessments were less feasible during the pandemic, formative and programmatic assessments were emphasized as suitable alternatives to gauge students' psychomotor competencies and integration of anatomical knowledge (Alsharif et al, 2020; Border et al, 2021; Harrell et al, 2021).…”

“…Nevertheless, online questions-including multiple-choice questions-were a flexible assessment method for cognitive learning outcomes (Sotgiu et al, 2021;McWatt, 2021). Despite high-quality photographs and diagrams online, students preferred face-to-face, practical examinations (Harmon et al, 2021;Sadeesh et al, 2021;Saini et al, 2021).…”

Identifying the challenges of online education from the perspective of University of Medical Sciences Students in the COVID-19 pandemic: a Q-methodology-based study

“…Some professors even expressed frustration with their ability to provide course content to students online [10]. Also, the results of a Q methodology study have shown that students generally hate online education compared to face-to-face education [11]. The results of various studies conducted on students have shown that the lack of sufficient personal interaction between students with each other and teachers and the confusing design and organization of educational materials have been the most critical challenges related to holding online and hybrid classes [12,13].…”