Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Changing Study Strategies with Revised Anatomy Curricula: a Move for Better or Worse?

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

Abstract

Investigations into medical student study strategies have seen an increase in recent years, but we have also seen a move to more integrated medical curricula during this time. This manuscript endeavors to assess the changes in study plans and students’ reported study strategies that are associated with a move from a traditional stand-alone anatomy curriculum to an integrated, standardized curriculum. Previously validated study strategy surveys were given to medical students at the beginning of their anatomy course and again at the end of the course. These responses were then correlated with basic demographic information and outcomes in anatomy. Results indicate that this change in curriculum does correlate with changes to students’ study plans and reported study strategies. In particular, the plans for and use of web-based resources appear higher in the new curriculum while the use of self-quizzing and attendance appear lower, with potentially negative implications for understanding and long-term retention. Differences were also seen between genders and student ages. Finally, a few associations with outcomes are also noted for increased use of web-based resources and student confidence going into the exam.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dunn-Lewis C, Finn K, FitzPatrick K. Student expected achievement in anatomy and physiology associated with use and reported helpfulness of learning and studying strategies. HAPS-Educator. 2016;20(4):27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  2. McBride JM, Drake RL. National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11(1):7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Drake RL, McBride JM, Pawlina W. An update on the status of anatomical sciences education in United States medical schools. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7:321–5.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crede M, Kuncel NR. Study habits, skills, and attitudes: the third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008;3(6):425–53.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Smith CF, Mathias H. An investigation into medical students’ approaches to anatomy learning in a systems-based prosection course. Clin Anat. 2007;20:843–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goldman RD, Hudson DJ. A multivariate analysis of academic abilities and strategies for successful and unsuccessful college students in different major fields. J Educ Psychol. 1973;65(3):364–70.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eley MG. Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. High Educ. 1992;23:231–54.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aharony N. The use of deep and surface learning strategies among students learning English as a foreign language in an Internet environment. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006;76:851–66.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ward PJ. First year medical students’ approaches to study and their outcomes in a gross anatomy course. Clin Anat. 2011;24:120–7.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vermunt JD. Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. High Educ. 2005;49(3):205–34.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stanger-Hall KF. Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012;11:294–306.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mji A. Conceptions of learning: views of undergraduate mathematics students. Psychol Rep. 1998;83:982.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Husmann PR. Medical student study strategies in relation to class size and course length. HAPS-Educator. 2018;22(3):187–98.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Selvig D, Holaday LW, Purkiss J, Hortsch M. Correlating students’ educational background, study habits, and resource usage with learning success in medical histology. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Knight JK, Smith MK. Different but equal? How nonmajors and majors approach and learn genetics. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9:34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Delaney L, Harmon C, Ryan M. The role of noncognitive traits in undergraduate study behaviors. Econ Educ Rev. 2013;32:181–95.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pizzimenti MA, Axelson RD. Assessing student engagement and self-regulated learning in a medical gross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:104–10.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Husmann PR, Barger JB, Schutte AF. Study skills in anatomy and physiology: is there a difference. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Edmunds R, Richardson JTE. Conceptions of learning, approaches to studying and personal development in UK higher education. Br J Educ Psychol. 2009;79:295–309.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ward PJ, Walker JJ. The influences of study methods and knowledge processing on academic success and long-term recall of anatomy learning by first-year veterinary students. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1:68–74.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Papinczak T, Young I, Groves M, Haynes M. Effects of a metacognitive intervention on student’s approaches to learning and self-efficacy in a first year medical course. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2008;13:213–32.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Martenson DF. Students’ approaches to studying in four medical schools. Med Educ. 1986;20:532–4.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tooth D, Tonge K, McManus IC. Anxiety and study methods in preclinical students: causal relation to examination performance. Med Educ. 1989;23:416–21.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Papa FJ, Harasym PH. Medical curriculum reform in North America, 1765 to the present: a cognitive science perspective. Acad Med. 1999;74(2):154–64.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ludmerer KM. Abraham Flexner and medical education. Perspect Biol Med. 2011;54(1):8–16.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cooke M, Irby DM, Sullivan W, Ludmerer KM. American medical education 100 years after the Flexner Report. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(13):1339–44.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hafferty FW. Beyond curriculum reform: confronting medicine’s hidden curriculum. Acad Med. 1998;73(4):403–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hilton SR, Slotnick HB. Proto-professionalism: how professionalisation occurs across the continuum of medical education. Med Educ. 2004;39(1):58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gofton W, Regehr G. What we don’t know we are teaching: unveiling the hidden curriculum. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;449:20–7.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mahood SC. Medical education: beware the hidden curriculum. Can Fam Physician. 2011;57(9):983–5.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wachtler C, Troein M. A hidden curriculum: mapping cultural competency in a medical programme. Med Educ. 2003;37:861–8.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Turbes S, Krebs E, Axtell S. The hidden curriculum in multicultural medical education: the role of case examples. Acad Med. 2002;77(3):209–16.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Stern DT. Practicing what we preach? An analysis of the curriculum of values in medical education. Am J Med. 1998;104(6):569–75.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gaufberg E, Batalden M, Sands R, Bell SK. The hidden curriculum: what can we learn from third-year medical student narrative reflections? Acad Med. 2010;85(11):1709–16.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hecker K, Violato C. Medical school curricula: do curricular approaches affect competence in medicine? Fam Med. 2009;41(6):420–6.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jiang N, Carpenter V. A case study of emerging challenges and reflections on internationalization of higher education. Int Educ Stud. 2014;7(9):56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Altbach PG. Higher education and the WTO: globalization run amok. Int High Educ. 2015;23. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2001.23.6593.

  38. Natale SM, Doran C. Marketization of education: an ethical dilemma. J Bus Ethics. 2012;105:187–96.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Barry DS, Marzouk F, Kyrylo C-O, Bennett D, Tierney P, O’Keeffe GW. Anatomy education for the YouTube generation. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;9:90–6.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Raikos A, Waidyasekara P. How useful is YouTube in learning heart anatomy? Anat Sci Educ. 2013;7:12–8.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jaffar AA. YouTube: an emerging tool in anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5:158–64.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Choi A-RA, Tamblyn R, Stringer MD. Electronic resources for surgical anatomy. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:1082–91.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Chan JCK, McDermott KB, Roediger HL III. Retrieval-induced facilitation: initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006;135(4):553–71.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Karpicke JD, Roediger HL III. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science. 2008;319(5865):966–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Karpicke JD, Butler AC, Roediger HL III. Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own. Memory. 2009;17(4):471–9.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Karpicke JD, Blunt JR. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science. 2011;331:772–5.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Roediger HL III, Karpicke JD. Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3):249–55.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Roediger HL III, Butler AC. The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011;15(1):20–7.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dobson JL, Perez J, Linderholm T. Distributed retrieval practice promotes superior recall of anatomy information. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10:339–47.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Dobson JL, Linderholm T. Self-testing promotes superior retention of anatomy and physiology information. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2015;20:149–61.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Crede M, Roch SG, Kieszczynka UM. Class attendance in college: a meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Rev Educ Res. 2010;80(2):272–95.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Laird-Fick HS, Solomon DJ, Parker CJ, Wang L. Attendance, engagement and performance in a medical school curriculum: early findings from competency-based progress testing in a new medical school curriculum. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5283.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Fogleman BS, Cleghorn GD. Relationship between class attendance and NBME part I examination. J Med Educ. 1983;58(10):904.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Eisen DB, Schupp CW, Isseroff RR, Ibrahimi OA, Ledo L, Armstrong AW. Does class attendance matter? Results from a second-year medical school dermatology cohort study. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54(7):807–16.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Azab E, Saksena Y, Alghanem T, Midle JB, Molgaard K, Albright S, et al. Relationship among dental students’ class lecture attendance, use of online resources, and performance. J Dent Educ. 2015;80(4):452–8.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lachman N, Pawlina W. Integrating professionalism in early medical education: the theory and application of reflective practice in the anatomy curriculum. Clin Anat. 2006;19:456–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Escobar-Poni B, Poni ES. The role of gross anatomy in promoting professionalism: a neglected opportunity! Clin Anat. 2006;19:461–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Pearson WG Jr, Hoagland TM. Measuring change in professionalism attitudes during the gross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:12–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Eleazer CD, Kelso RS. Influence of study approaches and course design on academic success in the undergraduate anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11:496–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kruger J, Dunning D. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;77(6):1121–34.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all of the students who participated in the surveys that led to this work. We would also like to thank Jackie Cullison for her help in administering the surveys to students on the Bloomington campus.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University School of Medicine, 104 Jordan Hall, 1001 E. 3rd St, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Polly R. Husmann, Daniel P. Gibson & Elizabeth M. Davis

Authors
  1. Polly R. Husmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel P. Gibson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth M. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Polly R. Husmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants

All research was completed in alignment with accepted ethics of Human Subjects Research (Indiana University IRB protocol #1507250684A001).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Husmann, P.R., Gibson, D.P. & Davis, E.M. Changing Study Strategies with Revised Anatomy Curricula: a Move for Better or Worse?. Med.Sci.Educ. 30, 1231–1243 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00998-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00998-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation