Non‐Graded Peer Teaching in the Gross Anatomy Lab: Efficacy and Perceived Utility on Improving Performance on Laboratory Assessments
Authors: Gray Andrew L. , Ryder Alexander H. , Rhodes Diana CJ. 
Published: June 2021

Teamwork and group learning are fundamental elements within the medical school curriculum. These techniques have been shown to be effective, not only in tackling the rigorous content of medical school, but also in developing presentation and leadership skills. However, many of these peer learning methods are mandatory parts of their respective courses. This project evaluates a non‐graded, peer learning activity during Gross Anatomy dissection lab sessions with regards to the effect of this activity on lab exam performance and student perceptions of the value of this activity.

Prior to each weekly Gross Anatomy lab, each student was assigned a topic (an “individual expert assignment”, IEA) that they were to present to their dissection group during the lab session. During each lab, each student was asked discretely to rate (on a scale of 0‐to‐2 in 0.5 increments) how well they had prepared for their IEA, and later in the lab, each student was asked to rate (on the same scale) the quality of their presentation of the IEA to their lab partners. At the end of each lab, there was an oral, group‐based, quiz. The self‐reported ratings on the IEA were compared to performance on the end‐of‐lab quiz. In addition, specific questions on the end‐of‐unit lab exam were identified as being related to specific IEAs, and the effect of the IEA on student performance on these specific exam questions was examined. Lastly, the students completed a short survey to gauge their perception of this non‐graded peer‐teaching activity. This study was determined to be exempt by the PNWU IRB (#2017‐019).

Students who self‐reported having prepared for their IEA and students who were not assigned the IEA performed similarly on end‐of‐unit lab exam questions that related to the specific IEA (84.9% vs. 83.2%). A somewhat greater difference was seen between students who self‐reported preparing for the topic (84.9% ± 13.2%) compared to students who self‐reported not preparing their IEA (72.5% ± 34.8%) (p=0.062). There was a significant positive correlation between the group mean self‐reported preparation/presentation score per student and the end‐of‐lab group quiz grades (ρ=.50, p=.0023). The questions on the end‐of‐unit survey asking about the utility of these assignments yielded a mean score of 2.8 on a 1 to 4 point scale, with 4 being “very beneficial” and 1 being “not at all beneficial”. On a separate question, 83% of student responses indicated that these IEAs should continue to be assigned and remain non‐graded, versus 5% of students suggesting these assignments be omitted, and 12% specifying that the activity should be graded. Dissection groups where students had higher preparation and presentation scores tended to have more positive responses on the survey (R=0.75, p<0.0001).

These findings indicate that students with increased perceived levels of participation in this activity tended to have increased performance on the proximal lab assessments (i.e. end‐of‐lab group quiz), but this did not significantly influence their later performance on end‐of‐unit lab exams. Overall, the vast majority of students wanted this activity to continue, with groups reporting a higher level of completion of these IEAs rating the activity's usefulness higher. The non‐graded nature of this educational technique presents an interesting technique to consider in future curricular development, where students can motivate themselves and their team members to participate in active learning and use collective resources to find success.

Support or Funding Information

None

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