Integrated Gross Anatomy and Histology (GRISTO): Benefits and Challenges for Students and Faculty Integrating Anatomical Sciences within a Traditional Curriculum Structure
Authors: Swailes Nathan , Hoffmann Darren S. 
Published: June 2021

Health professional programs often employ integration as a tool for emphasizing connections between disciplines and enhancing transfer of learned information. At the course level, integration provides unique opportunities for instructors to teach collaboratively and target learning objectives at the intersection of different disciplinary areas. This study describes our experiences and outcomes building and managing course‐level integration in a discipline‐based curriculum structure.

In 2012, we started a new model of teaching Gross Anatomy and Histology for dental students at the University of Iowa. After many years of teaching these two courses separately we resolved to integrate them with the goals of: 1) Reducing intellectual burden for students by teaching related content together in time, 2) Decreasing student contact hours in an over‐full curriculum, 3) Alleviating assessment stress/fatigue by combining examinations, and 4) Enhancing our students' ability to observe anatomy holistically at the macro and micro levels and empowering them to do this in their daily lives and chosen careers.

To achieve this, several curriculum innovations were employed. These included rotating dissection/peer teaching, virtual histology lab experiences, frequent low‐stakes assessment, computerized examinations, and skilled use of the online learning management system.

Furthermore, both courses were fully resequenced to maximize opportunities for integration between subjects. We will discuss topics that are challenging to integrate and topics which benefit particularly from a combined Anatomy/Histology presentation.

Results of this multi‐year study include analysis of course evaluations, student surveys and examination outcomes. Students were strongly in favor of this change, commenting specifically on how the integrated course had positively impacted their daily schedule by substantially reducing hours per student over the semester. Ninety‐five percent of students indicated that they preferred the organizational structure of the integrated course compared to their experiences in other non‐integrated courses. This positive student satisfaction result was coupled with unchanged or improved course performance. Faculty reflection yielded many additional observations including benefits to our teaching team members who have grown from their single disciplines into a second area of expertise.

The process of integrating these subjects was difficult and not all outcomes were strongly positive. In particular, delivering this type of course in a very traditional curriculum structure was challenging and required long‐term cooperation with the curriculum committee before, during and after the course change. Developing students' abilities to organize their time and thoughts for a large combined course also should not be overlooked. Finally, finding the balance between these two demanding disciplines is an ongoing process with small refinements necessary each year.

This presentation will demonstrate best‐practices for integration within the anatomical sciences, with specific recommendations for dentistry and when working within the confines of a non‐integrated curriculum structure.

This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.