Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Design of an Online Histology and Pathology Atlas for Medical Students: an Instructional Aid to Self-Directed Learning

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

Abstract

Background

Several institutions have integrated histology with other disciplines in team-based laboratory designs, but the integration of histology and pathology instructional tools for medical student learning has been less commonly reported in the literature compared to other basic sciences.

Objective

The primary aim of this study was to develop and pilot an on-line and accessible atlas of histology and histopathology, the Microanatomy and Pathology Atlas (MAPA), for use by medical students as an adjunct to learning histology and pathology in a medical school curriculum. The design of MAPA is based on the theoretical framework of adult learning theory and Gagne’s theory of learning as applied to instructional design. Student evaluations of MAPA as an instructional resource tested the hypothesis that the Atlas would be self-selected by students and that students would find it a satisfactory and valuable asset to their learning.

Method

MAPA was developed by a multidisciplinary team at The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences (GWU-SMHS). The Atlas includes a library of histology and histopathology images. Images in the Atlas illustrate key features of histology and pathology that are present in the associated digital slides assigned for student learning. Traditional laboratory manual instructions and study objectives are linked to specific interactive online-labeled images that allow for self-testing, and all of the pathology slides are embedded in clinical case studies that give the pathology real-world context. A mixed method design was used to evaluate data collected in 2015 on the frequency and usage of MAPA by medical students in the preclinical years, using a modified four-point Likert-style survey and open-ended questions to capture student satisfaction and perceived learning.

Results

Survey results demonstrated that in students’ opinions, MAPA is a useful too, complemented their other teaching courses, and it was set at a difficulty level that they felt was appropriate. About 92% of students indicated they would use the tool again in the future.

Conclusion

MAPA has been successfully implemented as an instructional tool for medical student learning of histology and histopathology and has been perceived by medical students as a helpful, web-based, and self-selected adjunct for learning. The results suggest that MAPA and similar web-based learning tools can be used to encourage and support self-directed medical student learning in histology and pathology and suggests that similar instructional tools may be useful in other disciplines to promote more active student learning.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Backhouse M, Fitzpatrick M, Hutchinson J, Thandi CS, Keenan ID. Improvements in anatomy knowledge when utilizing a novel cyclical “Observe-Reflect-Draw-Edit-Repeat” learning process. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(1):7–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis KO, Cidon MJ, Seto TL, Chen H, Mahan JD. Leveraging e-learning in medical education. Curr Probl Pediatr and Adolesc Health Care. 2014;44(6):150–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2014.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of e-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81(3):207–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(2):83–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.139.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Taveira-Gomes T, Ferreira P, Taveira-Gomes I, Severo M, Ferreira MA. What are we looking for in computer-based learning interventions in medical education? A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(8):e204. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Choudhury B, Gouldsborough I. The use of electronic media to develop transferable skills in science students studying anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(3):125–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi-Lundberg DL, Low TF, Patman P, Turner P, Sinha SN. Medical student preferences for self-directed study resources in gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(2):150–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: a critical review. Ann Anat. 2016;208:151–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2016.02.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar PA, Jothi R, Mathivanan D. Self-directed learning modules of CT scan images to improve students’ perception of gross anatomy. Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice. 2016;29(2):152–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.188778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barry DS, Marzouk F, Chulak-Oglu K, Bennett D, Tierney P, O'Keeffe GW. Anatomy education for the YouTube generation. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(1):90–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Trelease RB. From chalkboard, slides, and paper to e-learning: how computing technologies have transformed anatomical sciences education. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(6):583–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ettarh R. A practical hybrid model of application, integration, and competencies at interactive table conferences in histology (ITCH). Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(3):286–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Blevins A, Besaw ME. Reflecting on quiz placement in online tutorials: creating a more active learning experience. Med Ref Serv Q. 2011 2011;30(3):316–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2011.590427.

  14. Bloodgood RA, Ogilvie RW. Trends in histology laboratory teaching in United States medical schools. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2006 09;289(5):169–75.

  15. Ganske I, Su T, Loukas M, Shaffer K. Teaching methods in anatomy courses in north American medical schools: the role of radiology. Acad Radiol. 2006;13(8):1038–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2006.03.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Helle L, Nivala M, Kronqvist P, Gegenfurtner A, Björk P, Säljö R. Traditional microscopy instruction versus process-oriented virtual microscopy instruction: a naturalistic experiment with control group. Diagn Pathol. 2011 03/30;6 Suppl 1:S8-. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-6-S1-S8.

  17. Helle L, Nivala M, Kronqvist P. More technology, better learning resources, better learning? Lessons from adopting virtual microscopy in undergraduate medical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2013 03/20;6(2):73–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1302.

  18. Mione S, Valcke M, Cornelissen M. Evaluation of virtual microscopy in medical histology teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2013 09/20;6(5):307–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1353.

  19. Black VH, Smith PR. Increasing active student participation in histology. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2004 05;278(1):14–7.

  20. Bloodgood RA. Active learning: a small group histology laboratory exercise in a whole class setting utilizing virtual slides and peer education. Anat Sci Educ. 2012 11/20;5(6):367–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1294

  21. Braun MW, Kearns KD. Improved learning efficiency and increased student collaboration through use of virtual microscopy in the teaching of human pathology. Anat Sci Educ. 2008 01/01;1(6-):240–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.53.

  22. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ. 2009 01/01;2(6-):253–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.117.

  23. River J, Currie J, Crawford T, Betihavas V, Randall S. A systematic review examining the effectiveness of blending technology with team-based learning. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;45:185–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.08.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tsang A, Harris DM. Faculty and second-year medical student perceptions of active learning in an integrated curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016;40(4):446–53. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00079.2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gagné RM, Mills R. Principles of instructional design. Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jurjus RA, Krum J, Goldman EF. Design for learning: adapting the microscopic anatomy laboratory to adult learners. Anat Sci Educ. 2013 MAY-JUN;6(3):177–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1324

  27. Moustakas CE. Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Morse JM. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs Res. 1991;40(2):120–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mi M. Application of instructional design principles in developing an online information literacy curriculum. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016;35(1):112–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2016.1117298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rizzolo LJ, Stewart WB, O'Brien M, Haims A, Rando W, Abrahams J, et al. Design principles for developing an efficient clinical anatomy course. Med Teach. 2006;28(2):142–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500343065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heidger PM, Dee F, Consoer D, Leaven T, Duncan J, Kreiter C. Integrated approach to teaching and testing in histology with real and virtual imaging. Anat Rec. 2002 04/15;269(2):107–12.

  32. Banerjee A, Slagle JM, Mercaldo ND, Booker R, Miller A, France DJ, et al. A simulation-based curriculum to introduce key teamwork principles to entering medical students. BMC Medical Education. 2016;16(1):295. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0808-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Havyer RD, Nelson DR, Wingo MT, Comfere NI, Halvorsen AJ, Mcdonald FS, et al. Addressing the interprofessional collaboration competencies of the association of American medical colleges: a systematic review of assessment instruments in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med. 2016;91(6):865–88. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hall P, Weaver L. Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: a long and winding road. Med Educ. 2001 09;35(9):867,875 9p.

  35. Graham L, West C, Bauer D. Faculty development focused on team-based collaborative care. Educ Prim Care. 2014;25(4):227–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Goldberg HR, Dintzis R. The positive impact of team-based virtual microscopy on student learning in physiology and histology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007 09;31(3):261–5.

  37. Shaw PA, Friedman ES. Clinico-histologic conferences: histology and disease. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(1):55–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gupta G, Chhabra S, Singh K. Innovative method of teaching histology. International Journal of Recent Advances in Pharm Res. 2012;2(1):33–6.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Tabbers HK, Martens RL, Van Merriënboer JJG. Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and cueing. Br J Educ Psychol. 2004;74(1):71–81. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904322848824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. De Araujo Guerra Grangeia T, De Jorge B, Franci D, Santos TM, MSV S, Schweller M, et al. Cognitive load and self-determination theories applied to e-learning: impact on students’ participation and academic performance. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0152462. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Haji FA, Rojas D, Childs R, de Ribaupierre S, Dubrowski A. Measuring cognitive load: performance, mental effort and simulation task complexity. Med Educ. 2015;49(8):815–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Leppink J, Duvivier R. Twelve tips for medical curriculum design from a cognitive load theory perspective. Med Teach. 2016;38(7):669–74. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1132829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sweller J, Van Merrienboer JJG, Paas FGWC. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev. 1998;10(3):251–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mayer RE. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.

  45. Van Merriënboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):85–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fink LD. Creating significant learning experiences: an integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mione S, Valcke M, Cornelissen M. Remote histology learning from static versus dynamic microscopic images. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(3):222–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kumar RK, Velan GM, Korell SO, Kandara M, Dee FR, Wakefield D. Virtual microscopy for learning and assessment in pathology. J Pathol. 2004;204(5):613–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the AEIUCM (American Educational Institute, University and Campus Management; http://www.aeiucm.com/) for the design and maintenance of the website. They would also like to thank all the students who helped at various stages in building the MAPA project, and Ms. Catherine Sluder with her help with the figures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy and Regenerative Biology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences (GWU-SMHS), Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Rosalyn A. Jurjus & Janette M. Krum

  2. Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Gisela Butera

  3. The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Michelle Davis & Alexandra Mills

  4. Department of Pathology, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Patricia S. Latham

Authors
  1. Rosalyn A. Jurjus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gisela Butera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janette M. Krum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michelle Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexandra Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patricia S. Latham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosalyn A. Jurjus.

Ethics declarations

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at The George Washington University, as an Exempt Study (IRB #101306), approved this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jurjus, R.A., Butera, G., Krum, J.M. et al. Design of an Online Histology and Pathology Atlas for Medical Students: an Instructional Aid to Self-Directed Learning. Med.Sci.Educ. 28, 101–110 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0512-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0512-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation