self-directed learning in gross human anatomy: assessment outcomes and student perceptions

DESCRIPTIVE ARTICLE

Self-Directed Learning in Gross Human Anatomy: AssessmentOutcomes and Student Perceptions

Gayle Smythe,* Diane HughesSchool of Community Health, Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales, Australia

Speech pathology students enrolled in a lecture-based gross human anatomy programcompleted two out of nine topics in self-directed mode. Student performance in quizzeswas compared for the two modes, and the students completed questionnaires on their per-ceptions of the self-directed mode of delivery. Students performed as well in the first self-directed topic as they did in lecture-based material, but performance declined significantlyon the second self-directed topic. Correlations showed that students who performed wellin lecture-based topics also performed well on self-directed topics. The major issues thatarose in the student questionnaires were primarily related to the amount of content in thetopics and the length of time required for completion. We conclude that there is a strongneed for appropriate design of distance education materials to reflect student perceptionsof length, content, and time investment, and more importantly that there is a need toensure extensive communication and support of students studying in distance education/self-directed modes for the first time. Anat Sci Ed 1:145–153, 2008. © 2008 American Association

of Anatomists.

Key words: distance education; self-directed learning; assessment; students’ satisfaction;students’ perceptions; gross anatomy; speech pathology

INTRODUCTION

Many universities and colleges are increasingly relying on dis-tance education as a mode of curriculum delivery. The under-lying premise for distance education can be varied and mayinclude student or instructor convenience and flexibility, fi-nancial benefits, and increasingly, pedagogical benefits (Hamand Davey, 2005; Gotthardt et al., 2006). However, there is asignificant debate about whether this mode of subject andcourse delivery is an appropriate substitute for internal, face-to-face learning in terms of the student experience and thequality of instruction (reviewed in Richardson, 2005, 2006;Bray et al., 2007). There is evidence that students can per-form well in distance education courses as in traditional on-campus courses, regardless of a range of demographic factors(Spooner et al., 1999; Johnson et al., 2000; Gagne andShepherd, 2001; Lu et al., 2003). Furthermore, it has been

reported that the major determinant of overall student satis-faction with distance education courses is the perceived qual-ity of the instructor, and that students adapt well to a rangeof learning environments, provided that the pedagogy isstrong (DeBourgh, 2003). An extensive meta-analysis re-ported that despite a slight student preference for on-campusversus distance education learning, there was no overall datato support differences in student satisfaction levels between thetwo modes (Allen et al., 2002). Thus, it appears that studentscan perform well in a distance education environment, andthat the major determinant of student satisfaction with the dis-tance education experience is the perceived quality of instruc-tion and pedagogy (Allen et al., 2002; DeBourgh, 2003).

While distance education is highly amenable to learning ina range of courses, this is more difficult in the biomedical sci-ences where visualization and an understanding of structureand function in three dimensions are essential. The potentialfor high-quality distance education subject design has signifi-cantly improved with the advent of the Internet and newlydeveloped software that enables highly visual and interactiveresource development (Talay-Ongan, 2004; Ertmer and Nour,2007). There are now many examples of highly developedmaterials to support the biomedical sciences in distance edu-cation (Huang and Huang, 2003; Ertmer and Nour, 2007),although it is essential that these tools are used appropriatelyto avoid student frustration (Ertmer and Nour, 2007) andanxiety with using computers, email, and other online resour-

*Correspondence to: Dr. Gayle Smythe, School of Community Health,Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury, New South Wales 2640,Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Received 18 April 2008; Revised 20 May 2008; Accepted 29 May2008.

Published online 14 July 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/ase.33

© 2008 American Association of Anatomists

Anatomical Sciences Education JULY 2008 Anat Sci Ed 1:145–153 (2008)

ces (Fuller et al., 2006). A major issue in developing new dis-tance education subjects and courses is that designing newonline resources can be time-consuming, and subscription topreviously developed online programs can be expensive. Inmany cases, newly designed distance education subjects areinitially delivered using printed materials, supplemented byan increasing use of online and interactive tools as theybecome available.

The present study was conducted preliminary to conver-sion of an on-campus subject in head and neck gross anat-omy into distance education mode. The study was designedto determine whether gross human anatomy could be com-municated and learned effectively in self-directed mode, andhow students perceived the learning value of self-directed ma-terial. We hypothesized that assessment outcomes (indicatingunderstanding and retention of the material) would be similarfor self-directed and lecture-based topics, but that studentswould perceive that more time investment was required forthe self-directed materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The program in this study covers the compulsory head andneck gross anatomy material for students in the Bachelor ofHealth Science (Speech Pathology) degree at Charles SturtUniversity (Australia). This study was conducted with thelast cohort of speech pathology students to complete theprogram in on-campus mode. The subject comprised nineweekly topics given over a 13-week university semester.Eight of these topics were assessed in short weekly quizzesworth a total of 10 marks given in the week following thetopic (Table 1). Topic 9 was not assessed with a quiz,because it was covered in the last week of semester, andstudents sat their examinations in the following week.Topics were covered in weeks 1–6 and 10–12 of the teach-ing semester, with weeks 7–9 and 13 being used for revi-

sion, the mid-semester examination, and student clinicalplacement. Topics 6 (anatomy of phonation, articulation,and swallowing) and 8 (cranial nerves) were given in self-directed mode in weeks 6 and 11 of the semester (Table 1).All other topics were based on a live (face-to-face) weeklylecture that ran for 2 hr, and was given 2 days before thescheduled weekly practical class. Lectures consisted of aslide (PowerPoint) presentation outlining key anatomicalstructures and their functions relevant to speech pathology.For all topics, students were allocated to a noncompulsory2-hr cadaver-based practical class that reinforced the mate-rial covered in the lecture or self-directed topic. Theseclasses were still scheduled in the weeks that lectures werereplaced with self-directed topics to ensure students hadcontact with the lecturer and received support in theirlearning. This is consistent with the delivery of distanceeducation programs in biomedical sciences at our universityin which compulsory on-campus practical sessions supple-ment self-directed materials.

All students were required to learn the material regardlessof the delivery mode and to complete the weekly quizzes,while completion of the questionnaires about perceptions ofthe self-directed topics and the inclusion of quiz scores in thisresearch project were entirely voluntary. Inclusion of all stu-dent data (questionnaire responses and quiz scores) was withinformed consent received by participating students in ac-cordance with the approval and guidelines of the Ethics inHuman Research Committee at Charles Sturt University (pro-tocol no.: 2006/097).

The self-directed materials comprised a printed documentcontaining background information and instructions for com-pleting the topic, followed by several reading sections, eachof which contained activities such as reading and summariz-ing a section of the text (Seikel et al., 2005), answering ques-tions, describing concepts in lay terms, labeling diagrams,and carrying out Internet searches. Students were asked tosearch for web pages relevant to the topic and share the

Table 1.

Semester Schedule Showing Topic Information, Delivery Mode, and Timing of Quizzes for the Subject

Topic number Topic name Semester week Delivery mode Quiz given on topic

1 Introductory anatomy 1 Lecture Yes

2 Respiratory system 2 Lecture Yes

3 Larynx 3 Lecture Yes

4 Face, mouth, temporomandibular joint 4 Lecture Yes

5 Pharynx, tongue and palate 5 Lecture Yes

6 Anatomy of phonation, articulation andswallowing

6 Self-directed Yes

7 Central nervous system 10 Lecture Yes

8 Cranial nerves 11 Self-directed Yes

9 Ear and hearing 12 Lecture No

146 Smythe and Hughes

information with other students via the online subject forum.In the lecture class preceding each self-directed topic, studentswere provided with information about how to access the ma-terial, and approaches to studying in this mode were sug-gested.

At the completion of the topic (in the subsequent sched-uled class time), students were asked to complete a preassess-ment questionnaire, followed by completion of a quiz-styleassessment on the material covered in the self-directed topic.Students then completed a postassessment questionnaire onthe efficacy of the topic format after receiving their marks forthe quiz. The pre- and postassessment questionnaires werecompared to determine whether student responses wereaffected by their performance on the assessment items. Theitems covered on the pre- and postassessment questionnairesare summarized in Table 2.

Data Analysis

Quiz scores. Student quiz scores were compared as anoverall mean 6 standard deviation with other topics that hadbeen delivered in lecture format. Differences between meanquiz scores over a range of topics were tested for statisticalsignificance by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) fol-lowed by post hoc analysis using the least significant differ-ence model. For individual students, the quiz score obtainedon each self-directed topic was correlated with the meanscore obtained in all lecture-based topics. This was performedusing the standard calculation for Pearson’s correlation coeffi-cient in Microsoft Excel.

Questionnaires. Questionnaires were based predomi-nantly on students choosing a quantifiable answer to a ques-tion (e.g., yes/no, better/worse/same/uncertain). These res-ponses were quantified as a percentage of the total number ofresponses received to each question.

The questionnaires also had a section in which studentswere asked to offer comments about the self-directed topics.These were classified according to general themes (e.g.,whether the comment related to length of the topics, or thelevel of confusion or difficulty of the material and instruc-tions, etc.).

RESULTS

Comparison of Quiz Performance on MaterialGiven in Lectures Compared With the TwoSelf-Directed Topics

Twenty-seven students consented to having their quiz scoresincluded in this study. A total of eight quizzes were giventhroughout the subject, six of these were on lecture-basedmaterial, and one quiz was given on each of the self-directedtopics (see Table 1). First, overall class means were comparedfor each quiz (Fig. 1A). For lecture-based material, the classmeans ranged from 7.5 6 1.9 (out of 10) in the first quiz (seeFig. 1A, L1) to 5.7 6 2.3 (out of 10) in the fifth quiz (seeFig. 1A, L5). Overall class performance for the quiz given onthe first self-directed topic did not differ significantly to anyof the lecture-based quizzes (Fig. 1A, compare SD1 with L4and L5), while performance on the second self-directed quizwas the lowest overall (Fig. 1A, SD2). The scores for all lec-ture-based quizzes were next pooled to obtain a measure ofoverall performance in this style of learning and compared

with the two self-directed topics. Performance on the firstself-directed topic was similar to lecture-based material, butperformance on the second self-directed topic was signifi-cantly lower than both the lecture-based material and the firstself-directed topic (Fig. 1B).

To determine how individual students performed usingthese two styles of material delivery, more detailed analyseswere carried out for each student. First, a correlationbetween mean performance on lecture-based material andeach of the two self-directed topics was determined. For bothself-directed topics, a positive correlation with performance onlecture-based material occurred, indicating that individual stu-dents who performed well in one style of learning also per-formed well in the other. This correlation was particularlyhigh (0.87) for the first self-directed topic (Fig. 2A), andslightly lower (0.61) for the second (Fig. 2B). Second, rawquiz scores for individual students were compared to deter-mine whether students performed better, worse, or the sameon quizzes on the self-directed topics versus quizzes on lec-ture-based material. For both self-directed topics, the majorityof students performed worse than on lecture-based material,but this was strikingly so for the second self-directed topic,where only 2 of the 27 students obtained a better score thantheir average for lecture-based material (Fig. 3). Furthermore,students who performed worse on the self-directed topics gen-erally did so by a greater magnitude than those who per-formed better. For the first self-directed topic, students whoperformed worse did so by an average of 1.6 6 0.9 (range of0.5–2.9) marks, while those who performed better only did soby 0.6 6 0.4 (range of 0.25–1.1) marks. Again, this differencewas more striking for the second self-directed topic, where stu-dents who performed worse did so by 2.9 6 1.5 (range of0.5–5.2) marks.

Analysis of Student Perception ofSelf-Directed Topics

The preassessment questionnaire asked students to note howmuch time they spent on the topic, the level of difficulty andany confusion involved, and access and types of resourcesthat they used for the topic. Students spent an average of 3.36 1.9 hr on the first self-directed topic, with a range of 1.5–10 hr. Students generally spent more time on the second self-directed topic, although the variation was much larger, takingan average of 5.6 6 4.3 hr, with a range of 0.25–20 hr. Thedata for times reported by individual students are presentedin the histogram in Figure 4, which demonstrates that moststudents spent up to about 4 hr on the first self-directed topic,while the time spent by students on the second self-directedtopic was highly variable, with 10 students reporting thatthey spent over 5 hr on the topic.

The data for access to material and level of difficulty aresummarized in Table 3. For both topics, the majority of stu-dents reported that they had access to the materials theyrequired to complete the topic, and that the topic was easy tofollow. However, while the majority (85.7%) of studentsreported that there was something confusing about the firstself-directed topic, only 23.1% reported this for the secondtopic. When asked to supply comments about what specificthings were confusing or difficult about the topic, those whoresponded for the first topic reported that specific informationand directions contained within the topic was ambiguous,while for the second topic, all comments related to the

Anatomical Sciences Education JULY 2008 147

amount of information contained within the topic and thatthe topic was given at a ‘‘bad time of year’’ and coincidedwith many assignments for other subjects.

The resources students used to complete the topic arelisted in Table 4. Most students relied on the prescribed text

book for the subject, but most used at least one otherresource. It should be noted that some of the activitiesinvolved in the topic referred specifically to reading sectionsof the text book and searching the internet for relevant web-sites. For the first self-directed topic, the majority (42.9%) of

Table 2.

Items Included in the Pre- and Postassessment Questionnaires

Preassessment Questionnaire Postassessment Questionnaire

How many hours did you spend on the topic? How did you understand the material compared with the lectures

we’ve had so far? Choose one:

� Better

� Worse

� The same

� Uncertain

Did you have easy access to the resources required? (Yes or No) How did you perform on your quiz compared with previous

topics?

� Better

� Worse

� The same

Which resources did you use? Choose all that are applicable: Did you perform better, worse, or the same on your quiz as you

predicted you would?

� Text book � Better

� Library � Worse

� Laboratory resources (including audiovisual) � The same

� Lecturer’s advice

� Other (please give details)

Was the topic easy to follow? (Yes or No) Do you prefer self-directed or lecture-based mode?

Was there anything confusing about the topic? (Yes or No, if Yes,

please give details)

Please note any changes you would recommend to the self-

directed topics in the space below.

How did you understand the material compared with the lectures

we’ve had so far? Choose one:

� Better

� Worse

� The same

� Uncertain

What score do you think you’ll get on the quiz for this topic?

Do you prefer self-directed or lecture-based mode?

Please note any changes you would recommend to the

self-directed topics in the space below.


students used two resources, but for the second topic, the ma-jority (57.7%) used only one resource.

Students were asked in both the pre- and postassessmentquestionnaires if their understanding of the self-directed ma-terial was better, worse, or the same as material delivered inlectures in previous weeks (Table 5). For the first self-directedtopic, similar numbers of students reported a better or aworse understanding of the material compared with lecture-based material for both pre- and postassessment. However,while 32.1% reported a similar level of understanding preas-sessment, this increased to 52.4% postassessment. This corre-sponded to a decrease in the number of students who wereuncertain, which decreased from 28.7% preassessment to9.5% postassessment. For the second self-directed topic, nostudents reported either pre- or postassessment that they hada better understanding compared with lecture-based material.In direct contrast with the first topic, 61.5% reported thatthey had a worse understanding preassessment, and thisincreased to 70.6% postassessment.

Students were asked both pre- and postassessment if theyhad a preference for self-directed or lecture-based delivery ofsubject material (Table 6). In all cases, the majority of stu-dents preferred lecture-based material. While 28.6% of stu-dents reported a preference for self-directed material after thefirst topic, this decreased to only 5.9% after the second topic.Furthermore, for both topics, there was a decrease in prefer-ence for a combination of lecture-based and self-directed ma-terial between the pre- and postassessment questionnaires.

Themes for Suggested Changes FromStudents

Two key themes emerged when students were asked in thepreassessment questionnaire for their recommended changesto the material included in the first self-directed topic. Thefirst of these related to the content of the material providedfor students to complete the topic. Ten of 28 respondents rec-ommended changes to the topic design, focussing on contentssuch as images, written material, and length of time requiredto complete the topic. The majority thought the topic wastoo long and there were too many activities, but severalrequested that more activities, more images and references toalternative resources, and more challenging material beincluded.

The second theme to emerge related to support providedfor students during the first self-directed topic. Nine of the 28respondents to the preassessment questionnaire requestedanswers to the questions and activities, and/or a follow-up tu-torial session with the lecturer in support of the self-directedtopic.

All students who supplied recommended changes aboutthe second self-directed topic reported that the topic con-tained too much information and took too long to complete.Several students also recommended that more learning activ-ities be included in the topic, although no specific activitieswere suggested. Several students also commented that the sec-ond topic coincided with a large workload (e.g. assignments)in other subjects. These factors are likely to be major contrib-utors to the significant decline in student preference for self-directed learning that occurred between the first (28.6%) andsecond (5.9%) self-directed topics.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that students are able to perform aswell in self-directed topics, but that they may perceive thatself-directed topics require a greater time commitment com-pared with topics delivered in a traditional lecture-basedmode. In this case, the second self-directed topic coincidedwith a large workload for other subjects, and this correlatedwith lower performance, an extremely variable amount oftime spent on the topic, and use of fewer resources. It alsocorrelated with an increase in the number of students report-ing that the topic was too long, and contained too much in-formation, although between the first and second topics,there was a threefold decrease in the number of studentsreporting that the topic was confusing. Therefore, in our ex-perience, student satisfaction levels with self-directed learn-ing are low, and this is attributable primarily to design ofthe materials and support/instructions given to students, theperceived amount of time required to complete the topics,and to student workloads in other subjects. These findingsare currently being used to make significant design changesto the conversion of this subject to full distance educationmode.

It should be considered that the level of difficulty of thetopic material contributed to the decline in quiz performancefor the second self-directed topic. This possibility could onlyhave been excluded by having half the students do each topicin self-directed mode, and the other half in lecture-basedmode. However, it was considered that this could disadvant-age some students, should our hypotheses be proven wrong

Figure 1.

A: Comparison of class means for each quiz given on six lectures (L1–L6) andtwo self directed topics (SD1 and SD2). Overall class performance was worston the quiz given for self-directed topic 2 (SD2), where performance was sig-nificantly worse than on the worst lecture-based quiz (L5) (**one-wayANOVA, P < 0.005, n 5 27). B: Comparison of class performance on assess-ment items for lecture-based versus self-directed material. The class raw scoresfor the six quizzes on lecture-based material were pooled to obtain an overallmean. The performance on the first self-directed topic test was not significantlydifferent to that for the tests on the lecture-based material, but performance onthe second topic was significantly worse than on both lecture-based (ddP <0.005) and the first self-directed topic (**P < 0.005).


Figure 2.

Scatter plots correlating the mean score for weekly quizzes on lecture-based material with the raw quiz scores obtained for the quizzes given on the (A) first and (B)second self-directed topics. In both cases, there was a positive correlation (rxy) between prior performance and performance on the self-directed topic, although thiswas somewhat higher for the first topic than the second.

Figure 3.

Raw data showing differences in performance on quiz scores, comparing the mean performance in quizzes given on lecture-based material with performance oneach of the two quizzes given for Topics 1 and 2. Almost half of the group performed better on Topic 1 compared with their mean quiz score from lectures, but thischanged dramatically for Topic 2 with only two students performing better on the self-directed material (n 5 27).


(i.e., that students perform as well in each mode of delivery),and the study was thus designed with ethics, pedagogy, andstudent equity in mind. Despite a potential contribution ofthis factor to student performance and perceptions of theself-directed topics, this does not significantly impact on theother issues that were raised by students in their pre- andpostassessment questionnaires.

A major issue in this study was the amount of time stu-dents felt was required to complete the self-directed topics.This occurred despite the students being informed that theself-directed topics should take no longer to complete thanthe combined total of normal lecture time and presumedweekly study time. This may be due in part to the design ofthe topics and communication between the lecturer and stu-dents about expectations and study approaches, but may alsoreflect student’s time management skills. The phenomenon ofstudent procrastination, whereby weekly study habits areavoided and substituted for last minute study for examina-

tions, has been widely reported and reviewed (reviewed inSchouwenbourg, 2006). Self-directed learning puts a strongemphasis on the learner, taking responsibility for their owntime management and the learning experience (reviewed inLee et al., 2003). This is detrimental to using distance educa-tion or flexible learning tools for some student groups (Leeet al., 2003), and there is evidence that distance education ismore suited to students who can work at their own pace andavoid procrastination (Leasure et al., 2000). Certainly for dis-tance education to work well, students must be committed totake responsibility for their learning and show dedication tocomplete required learning tasks (Ladyshewsky, 2004). There-fore, the student perception that the distance education topicsconsumed too much time may be associated with the generalpractice of not studying extensively on a weekly basis outsidelecture times.

A range of factors contribute to a successful distance edu-cation experience. Student personality types can affect percep-

Figure 4.

Histogram showing amount of time students reported spending on self-directed topics 1 and 2 (SD1 and SD2). Times were pooled as 0–1 hr (up to 1 hr), 1–2 hr(>1 up to 2 hr), etc. Numbers of students in each time pooling is the raw number. For the first self-directed topic, the majority of students spent 1–3 hr completingthe material, while there was much greater variability in the times reported by students for the second self-directed topic. n 5 28 for SD1, and n 5 26 for SD2.

Table 3.

Summary of Data Obtained From Students About Time Access to Materials, Clarity of the Topic, and Confusing IssuesInvolved in the Topic

Self-directed 1 (n 5 28) Self-directed 2 (n 5 26)

Yes No Yes No

Did you have access to the resources you required? 22 (78.6%) 6 (21.4%) 19 (73.1%) 7 (26.9%)

Was the topic easy to follow? 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 18 (69.2%) 8 (30.8%)

Was there anything confusing about the topic? 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 6 (23.1%) 20 (76.9%)

The number of students giving each response is shown with this as a percentage of the total respondents for that topic shown in parentheses.


tion of the distance education experience, whereby extrovertswho like the social contact and to study in groups with otherstudents can find the isolation of distance learning difficult(Meisgeier and Richardson, 1996), although in the case ofthe present study this is unlikely to be a major contributingfactor, since all students were enrolled in other on-campussubjects and had adequate opportunity to study in groups onthe self-directed topics. Different learning styles can alsoaffect performance and perception of distance education(Allen et al., 2002), although our results show that most stu-dents who performed well by distance education also per-

formed well on lecture-based topics, and this likely reflects ageneral commitment of those students to regular study habitsand a stronger academic ability. Certain demographic issuesmay contribute to how students approach distance learning.Adult learners, particularly those aged over 46 years (Inglis,1987), are more likely to succeed at distance education thanyounger students, and there is evidence that younger studentsin the 16- to 19-year age range require a highly supportedlearning environment (Guthrie and Krzemionka, 1987). Inthe present study, the majority of students were aged 22 yearsor less and in their second year of university study after com-ing straight from high school. This further supports therequirement for a high level of instructor support for distanceeducation, and it is important that demographic information,such as age, be taken into account in the design of distanceeducation materials and the application of self-directed mate-rials for on-campus subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, this study has shown that self-directed learningcan be as effective as standard lecture-based learning, butthat students perceive that completing material in self-directed mode is more time-consuming and laborious. Impor-tantly, this research has provided key information that will beused to develop new distance education materials in thefuture, with a specific focus on the design of the distance edu-cation materials, the structure of the materials in relation toworkloads in other subjects in the course, and the level ofguidance provided to students in studying skills specific todistance education.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

GAYLE SMYTHE, B.Sc., Ph.D., is a lecturer in anatomy andphysiology in the School of Community Health at Charles SturtUniversity, Albury, New South Wales, Australia. She holds abachelor of science degree with honours, majoring in anatomyand human biology, a PhD in cell biology, and has an estab-lished research program in muscle biology and disease.

DIANE HUGHES, B.Sc., is the Senior Technical Officerand manager of the anatomy laboratory in the School of

Table 4.

Use of Resources by Students in Completing theSelf-Directed Topic

ResourceSelf-directed1 (n 5 28)

Self-directed2 (n 5 26)

Prescribed text book 26 22

Library 3 5

Laboratory texts and

audiovisual

4 6

Advice from lecturer 5 4

Internet 12 3

Notes from previous

lectures

8 0

Study group 1 1

CD-ROM packaged

with text book

2 0

Use of one resource

only

7 (25.0%) 15 (57.7%)

Use of two resourcesonly

12 (42.9%) 6 (23.1%)

Use of �three

resources

9 (32.1%) 5 (19.2%)

Table 5.

Pre- and Postassessment Perception of Level of Understanding of the Self-Directed Material

Self-directed 1 Self-directed 2

Understandingpre (n 5 28)

Understandingpost (n 5 21)

Understandingpre (n 5 26)

Understandingpost (n 5 17)

Better than usual 2 (7.1%) 2 (9.5%) 0 0

Worse than usual 9 (32.1%) 6 (28.6%) 16 (61.5%) 12 (70.6%)

Same as usual 9(32.1%) 11 (52.4%) 3 (11.5%) 5 (29.4%)

Uncertain 8 (28.7%) 2 (9.5%) 6 (23.1%) 0

No response 0 0 1 (3.9%) 0


Community Health at Charles Sturt University, Albury,New South Wales, Australia. She is an experienced anato-mist and lecturer in anatomy, and holds a bachelor of sci-ence (honours) degree majoring in biomedical science.

LITERATURE CITEDAllen M, Bourhis J, Burrell N, Mabry E. 2002. Comparing student satisfactionwith distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. Am J Dist Ed 16:83–97.

Bray NJ, Harris MS, Major C. 2007. New verse or the same old chorus? Look-ing holistically at distance education research. Res Higher Ed 48:879–908.

DeBourgh GA. 2003. Predictors of student satisfaction in distance-deliveredgraduate nursing courses: What matters most? J Prof Nurs 19:149–163.

Ertmer PA, Nour AYM. 2007. Teaching basic medical sciences at a distance:Strategies for effective teaching and learning in Internet-based courses. J VetMed Ed 34:316–324.

Fuller RM. Vician C, Brown SA. 2006. E-learning and individual characteris-tics: The role of computer anxiety and communication apprehension. JCIS46:103–115.

Gagne M, Shepherd M. 2001. A comparison between a distance and a tradi-tional graduate accounting class. Tech Horizons Ed J 28:58–65.

Gotthardt M, Siegert MJ, Schlieck A, Schneider S, Kohnert A, Gross MW,Schafer C, Wagner R, Hormann S, Behr TM, Engenhard-Cabillic R, Klose KJ,Jungclas H, Glowalla U. 2006. How to successfully implement E-learning forboth students and teachers. Acad Radiol 13:379–390.

Guthrie H, Krzemionka Z. 1987. Distance education needs for 16 to 19 yearolds. Summary Report, TAFE National Centre for Research and Development,Adelaide, Australia. ERIC database ID number: ED291902.

Ham V, Davey R. 2005. Our first time: Two higher education tutors reflect onbecoming a ‘virtual teacher’. Innov Ed Teach Int 42:257–264.

Huang C, Huang HK. 2003. Interactive instruction of cellular physiology forremote learning. Cell Mol Biol 49:1377–1384.

Inglis P. 1987. Distance teaching is dead! Long live distance learning! orAutonomy in distance learning. ICDE Bulletin 15:47–52.

Johnson SD, Aragon SR, Shaik N, Palma-Rivas N. 2000. Comparative analysisof learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learn-ing environments. J Interact Learn Res 11:29–49.

Ladyshewsky R. 2004. Online learning versus face to face learning: What isthe difference? In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Teaching and Learning Fo-rum Seeking Educational Excellence, Murdoch University, Perth (Western Aus-tralia, Australia): 2004 Feb 9-10. URL: http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2004/lady-shewsky.html. [accessed 20 May 2008].

Leasure AR, Davis L, Thievon SL. 2000. Comparison of student outcomes andpreferences in a traditional vs World Wide Web-based baccalaureate nursingresearch course. J Nurs Ed 39:149–154.

Lee G, Weerakoon P, Lingard J. 2003. A case study of flexible delivery: Obser-vations on student choice, approaches to learning and performance. In: Pro-ceedings of the 26th Annual International Higher Education Research and De-velopment Society of Australasia (HERDSA) Conference. Christchurch (NewZealand). 2003 Jul 6-9. URL: http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2003/PDF/HERDSA10.pdf [accessed 20 May 2008].

Lu J, Yu CS, Liu C. 2003. Learning style, learning patterns, and learning per-formance in a WebCT-based MIS course. Inform Manag 40:497–507.

Meisgeier C, Richardson RC 1996. Personality types of interns in alternativeteacher certification programs. Ed Forum 60:350–360.

Richardson JTE. 2005. Students’ perceptions of academic quality andapproaches to studying in distance education. Brit Ed Res J 31:7–27.

Richardson JTE. 2006. Investigating the relationships between variations instudents’ perceptions of their academic environment and variations in studybehaviour in distance education. Brit J Ed Psych 76:867–893.

Schouwenburg HC. 2006. Procrastinators and fear of failure: An explorationof reasons for procrastination. Eur J Personal 6:225–236.

Seikel JA, King DW, Drumright DG. 1997. Anatomy and Physiology forSpeech, Language and Hearing. 1st Edition, San Diego, CA: Singular Publish-ing Group. 705 p.

Spooner F, Jordan L, Algozzine B, Spooner M. 1999. Student ratings of instruc-tion in distance learning and on-campus classes. J Ed Res 92:132–140.

Talay-Ongan A. 2004. From a distance: Student empowerment and construct-ing teacher identities online. Turk Online J Dist Ed 5. URL: http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde15/pdf/ongan.pdf [accessed 20 May 2008].

Table 6.

Student Preferences for Lecture-Based Versus Self-Directed Material Delivery, As Reported in Pre- andPostassessment Questionnaires

Self-directed 1 Self-directed 2

Preassessment (n 5 28) Postassessment (n 5 21) Preassessment (n 5 26) Postassessment (n 5 17)

Lectures 17 (60.7%) 14 (66.7%) 19 (73.1%) 15 (88.2%)

Self-

directed

7 (25%) 6 (28.6%) 3 (11.5%) 1 (5.9%)

Both 4 (14.3%) 1 (4.7%) 3 (11.5%) 1 (5.9%)

No

response

0 0 1 (3.9%) 0


self-directed learning in gross human anatomy: assessment outcomes and student perceptions

Documents