Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative Assessment in the Gross Anatomy Lab

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In 2018, the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine incorporated two-stage examinations into the gross anatomy curriculum. Multiple studies have investigated two-stage examinations and have largely reported positive findings. Here, we used a mixed-methods approach to further investigate the feasibility and student perceptions of the two-stage examination in the context of a medical school curriculum that emphasizes longitudinal group-based learning and formative assessments.

Methods

Three student cohorts were assessed with a formative two-stage examination at the end of their first-year anatomy experience. Data for the quantitative analysis included examination scores from the individual and group portions of the two-stage examination. For the qualitative stage of this project, we utilized a constructivist grounded theory methodology in which data, including both post-examination survey results and one-on-one semi-structured student interviews, were transcribed (interviews), coded, inductively and iteratively reviewed, and thematically interpreted.

Results

Survey and interview results revealed an overwhelmingly positive perception of the collaborative assessment experience. Student comments demonstrated educational value in the immediate feedback provided by this examination format and suggested that collaboration during the examination transformed the assessment into a learning experience.

Conclusions

While two-stage examinations have the potential to positively transform an assessment into a learning experience, we also identified complex relationships between content knowledge and anxiety that may affect student perceptions. In addition, examination logistics (e.g., curricular timing) have the potential to negatively affect student perceptions, indicating that faculty should consider these factors when implementing collaborative assessments into their curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data is available on request.

References

  1. Rotellar C, Cain J. Research, perspectives, and recommendations on implementing the flipped classroom. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016;80(2):Article 34.

  2. Hopkins R, Regehr G, Wilson TD. Exploring the changing learning environment of the gross anatomy lab. Acad Med. 2011;86(7):883–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertman SL, Marks SC Jr. The dissection experience as a laboratory for self-discovery about death and dying: another side of clinical anatomy. Clin Anat. 1989;2(2):103–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bentley BS, Hill RV. Objective and subjective assessment of reciprocal peer teaching in medical gross anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(4):143–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Evans DJ, Cuffe T. Near-peer teaching in anatomy: an approach for deeper learning. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(5):227–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nwachukwu C, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Evaluating dissection in the gross anatomy course: correlation between quality of laboratory dissection and students outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(1):45–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alfaro P, Larouche SS, Ventura NM, Hudon J, Noel GP. Nursing and medical students near-peer activity in the anatomy laboratory: format for success. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;5:769–80. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S209412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sprunger LK, Smith TL. Reorganizing small animal gross anatomy: improving the faculty and student experience and incorporating non-technical competency development. J Vet Med Educ. 2005;32(2):255–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang MF, Liao ML, Lue JH, Yeh CC. The impact of asynchronous online anatomy teaching and smaller learning groups in the anatomy laboratory on medical students’ performance during the Covid-19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(3):476–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2179.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Burgess A, Roberts C, Ayton T, Mellis C. Implementation of modified team-based learning within a problem based learning medical curriculum: a focus group study. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1172-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Functions and structure of a medical school: standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the MD degree. 2023. Available at: www.lcme.org. Accessed 10 Mar 2023.

  12. Snekalatha S, Marzuk SM, Meshram SA, Maheswari KU, Sugapriya G, Sivasharan K. Medical students’ perception of the reliability, usefulness and feasibility of unproctored online formative assessment tests. Adv Physiol Educ. 2021;45(1):84–8. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00178.2020.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Prashanti E, Ramnarayan K. Ten maxims of formative assessment. Adv Physiol Educ. 2019;43(2):99–102. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00173.2018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schüttpelz-Brauns K, Karay Y, Arias J, Gehlhar K, Zupanic M. Comparison of the evaluation of formative assessment at two medical faculties with different conditions of undergraduate training, assessment and feedback. GMS J Med Educ. 2020;37(4). https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001334.

  15. Sousa A, Mavis B, Laird-Fick H, DeMuth R, Gold J, Emery M, Ferenchick G, Paganini A, Colon-Berlingeri M, Arvidson C, Toriello H, Parker C, Malinowski R, Han C, Wagner D. Learning by doing and creation of the shared discovery curriculum. Med Educ Online. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2181745.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Levy D, Svoronos T, Klinger M. Two-stage examinations: can examinations be more formative experiences? Active Learn High Educ. 2018;00(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418801668.

  17. Cortright RN, Collins HL, Rodenbaugh DW, DiCarlo SE. Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. Adv Physiol Educ. 2003;27: 102108. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00041.2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Khong ML, Tanner JA. A collaborative two-stage examination in biomedical sciences: positive impact on feedback and peer collaboration. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2021;49(1):69–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21392.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Giuliodori MJ, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Collaborative group testing benefits high- and low-performing students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2008;32(4):274–8. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00101.2007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patiweael JA, Douma AH, Bezakova N, Kusurka RA, Daelmans HEM. Collaborative testing in physical examination skills training and the autonomous motivation of students: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02618-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eastwood JL, Kleinberg KA, Rodenbaugh DW. Collaborative testing in medical education: student perceptions and long-term knowledge retention. Med Sci Educ. 2020;30:737–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00944-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bentley DC, Attardi SM, Faul J, Melo V, Palmer C. Two-stage collaborative group testing does not improve retention of anatomy among students studying medical radiation technology. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2021;52(4):S96–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2021.08.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Efu SI. Exams as learning tools: a comparison of traditional and collaborative assessment in higher education. Coll Teach. 2019;67:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2018.1531282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Barremkala M, Taylor TAH, Taranikanti V. Team assessment in laboratory setting (TAILS): a novel approach using cadavers to assess collaborative learning in the gross anatomy lab. Med Sci Educ. 2020;30:21–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00860-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cooke JE, Weir L, Clarkston B. Retention following two-stage collaborative exams depends on timing and student performance. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2019;18(2):ar12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.

  26. VanLeuven AJ, Szymik BG, Ramsey LM, Hesse DW. A multi-year evaluation of medical student performance on and perceptions of collaborative gross anatomy laboratory examinations. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2223.

  27. Shepherd G. Experience with implementing pyramid examinations in an elective pharmacy course. Experiences in teaching and learning. 2018;10(12):1631–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Parsell JA, Blystone A, Williams AE. Transitioning two-stage exams to an online class. CourseSource 9. https://doi.org/10.24918/cs.2022.29.

  29. Green RA, Cates T, White L, Farchione D. Do collaborative practical tests encourage student-centered active learning of gross anatomy? Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(3):231–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fournier KA, Couret J, Ramsay JB, Caulkins JL. Using collaborative two-stage examinations to address test anxiety in a large enrollment gateway course. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(5):409–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1677.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Noble H, Mitchell G. What is grounded theory? Evid Based Nurs. 2016;19(2):34–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2016-102306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. United States: SAGE; 2016.

  33. Kekeya J. Analysing qualitative data using an iterative process. Contemp PNG Stud. 2016;24:86–94.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Claramita M, Setiawati EP, Kristina TN, Emilia O, Van Der Vleuten C. Community-based educational design for undergraduate medical education: a grounded theory study. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1643-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kennedy T, Regehr G, Rosenfield J, Roberts SW, Lingard L. Exploring the gap between knowledge and behavior: a qualitative study of clinician action following an educational intervention. Acad Med. 2004;79(5):386–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kennedy TJ, Regehr G, Baker GR, Lingard L. Preserving professional credibility: grounded theory study of medical trainees’ requests for clinical support. BMJ. 2009;338. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b128.

  37. Bateman J, Allen M, Samani D, Kidd J, Davies D. Virtual patient design: exploring what works and why. A grounded theory study Med Educ. 2013;47(6):595–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Winkel AF, Robinson A, Jones AA, Squires AP. Physician resilience: a grounded theory study of obstetrics and gynaecology residents. Med Educ. 2019;53(2):184–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13737.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shapiro P, Lebeau R, Tobia A. Mindfulness meditation for medical students: a student-led initiative to expose medical students to mindfulness practices. Med Sci Educ. 2019;29:439–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00708-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ritchie L, Kulig E, Seltz LB. Faculty teachers’ perspectives of resident academic half day. Med Sci Educ. 2019;29:131–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-00647-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Laughey WF, Brown ME, Finn GM. ‘I’m sorry to hear that’—empathy and empathic dissonance: the perspectives of PA students. Med Sci Educ. 2020;30:955–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00979-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ommering BW, Wijnen-Meijer M, Dolmans DH, Dekker FW, van Blankenstein FM. Promoting positive perceptions of and motivation for research among undergraduate medical students to stimulate future research involvement: a grounded theory study. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02112-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lindsley JE, Morton DA, Pippitt K, Lamb S, Colbert-Getz JM. The two-stage examination: a method to assess individual competence and collaborative problem solving in medical students. Acad Med. 2106;91(10):1384–1387. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001185.

  44. Phillips TA, Munn AC, George TP. The impact of collaborative testing in graduate nursing education. J Nurs Educ. 2019;58(6):357–9. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20190521-07.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hansen SE, Defenbaugh N, Mathieu SS, Garufi LC, Dostal JA. A mixed-methods exploration of the developmental trajectory of autonomous motivation in graduate medical learners. Med Sci Edu. 2021;31:2017–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01396-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pozzatti A. College students with learning disabilities: the relationship between anxiety and self-determination. Indiana University; 2020.

  47. ten Cate OT, Kusurkar RA, Williams GC. How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE guide No. 59. Med Teach. 2011;33(12):961–73.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anatomy faculty who took on the additional work of managing and grading the two-stage examinations. We would also like to thank our students for their participation in the exams, surveys, and interviews. Thank you also to Melanie McCollum for supporting this scholarly work.

Funding

The research incentives were provided by MSU’s Department of Radiology faculty development funds. Internal Professional Development Funds.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nathan Rotundo

    Present address: Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

    Ryan Maureen Tubbs, Felicia White, Nathan Rotundo & Amber Heard-Booth

  2. Department of Pediatrics, Corewell Health Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital, Grand Rapids, MI, USA

    Felicia White

Authors
  1. Ryan Maureen Tubbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felicia White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathan Rotundo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amber Heard-Booth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to this project. R.M.T. and A.H.-B. contributed to the study conception and design. Survey collection was performed by R.M.T. Interviews were performed by F.W. and N.R. Data analysis was performed by R.M.T. and reviewed by A.H.-B., N.R., and F.W. Drafts of the manuscript were written, in order of contribution, by F.W., N.R., and R.M.T., and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan Maureen Tubbs.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This study was deemed exempt by the institutional review board of Michigan State University.

Consent for Publication

All authors consent to the publication of this manuscript. Participants who consented to this project were informed that anonymized data would be utilized in a formal publication. Portions of this work were previously presented as a poster at the Grand Rapids Citywide Research Day on April 13, 2022, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and the International Association of Medical Science Educators (IAMSE) Annual Meeting on June 5, 2022, in Denver, Colorado.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tubbs, R.M., White, F., Rotundo, N. et al. Collaborative Assessment in the Gross Anatomy Lab. Med.Sci.Educ. 34, 57–69 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01908-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01908-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation