University of Central MissouriHuman Anatomy

RedesignNCAT Mid-Course Sharing WorkshopJune 20, 2012, Columbia, MO

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n

Our Successes… wait for it…Our lab construction was delayed

The lab is completed and ready for full implementation in the Fall!

before after

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n

Our New Anatomy Lab8 custom designed team learning

stationsTouch screen HP computers Complete set of core modelsTwo microscopesHistology set

Dual screens/projectors

ADA station/Demonstration cart

Panning demo camera

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n

Our Plan for the New LabOld Format

Anatomy content split over two semesters; taught only in lab sections

New Format: 1 50-min lecture (all students)

Weekly content goals, difficult concepts, communication

1 110-min supervised lab (40 student sections)Demos, exercises, learning modules, group

assessmentSelf assessment that evening

1 110-min recitation/open lab (40 student sections)Composite assessment score directs student to

recitation or open lab

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n

Baseline and Performance DataApproach:

Perform pre- and post tests20 questions (15 from past exams, 5 critical

thinking)Collect ACT scores- validate as a normalizerUtilize common content from past/future

exams to compare traditional vs. redesignUtilize enrollment in Human Physiology as

evidence that the students persisted in their program

Utilize learning style and opinion surveys for course satisfaction data

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n

Traditional Courses: Average Correct on Pre and Post Tests

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

nAverage score; error bars= standard deviation; *=p <0.005 (T-test)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

PrePost

Anatomy & Physiology II

*

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pre Post

Anatomy & Physiology I

*

13% increase23% increase

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

nCritical Thinking Results

15 16 17 18 19 200.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Pre Post

Perc

en

t C

orr

ect

Mean increase 21%

Predicting Success

A B C D F17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Relationship between ACT scores and A&P I course

outcomesCompositeLinear (Composite)Linear (Composite)Linear (Composite)Science/Reasoning

Anatomy and Physiology I Grade

AC

T S

core

84 85 68 45 60A B C D F

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

GPA vs. A&P I Grade

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n

Implementation IssuesCurriculum issues related to the transition

of a course seriesRequired a staggered approach to teach outImpact on certified programsArticulation issues

A shifting opinion on the value of the effortFear of a loss in quality due to computer

componentsSustainability of modelResistance to change pedagogy

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n

Implementation IssuesLinking the course to electronic

resources links you to the new version of the textBig problem in Rental SystemsE-book vs. Bound

No consensus reached on level of McGraw Hill support for campusPackage all components- sell to studentsA La Carte approach through bookstore

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n

Implementation ChangesThe traditional course was mainly

taught by tenure-track and full-time instructorsA significant change to GAs/ULAs

reduced the need, as designedDisplaced faculty are slow to acclimate

to the changes and will likely replace the GAs/ULAs in the short-term

Hum

an

An

ato

my R

edesig

n