View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Mixed Method Analysis of Student Satisfaction with Active Learning Techniques in an Online Graduate Anatomy Course: Consideration of Demographics and Previous Course Enrollment

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Mixed Method Analysis of Student Satisfaction with Active Learning Techniques in an Online Graduate Anatomy Course: Consideration of Demographics and Previous Course Enrollment
Language: English
Authors: Bradley, Libby J. (ORCID 0000-0002-3126-7758), Meyer, Kimberly E., Robertson, Taylor C., Kerr, Marcel Satsky, Maddux, Scott D., Heck, Amber J., Reeves, Rustin E., Handler, Emma K.
Source: Anatomical Sciences Education. Sep-Oct 2023 16(5):907-925.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Student Satisfaction, Active Learning, Online Courses, Graduate Students, Anatomy, Student Characteristics, Prior Learning, Medical Education
DOI: 10.1002/ase.2276
ISSN: 1935-9772
1935-9780
Abstract: Online learning has become an essential part of mainstream higher education. With increasing enrollments in online anatomy courses, a better understanding of effective teaching techniques for the online learning environment is critical. Active learning has previously shown many benefits in face-to-face anatomy courses, including increases in student satisfaction. Currently, no research has measured student satisfaction with active learning techniques implemented in an online graduate anatomy course. This study compares student satisfaction across four different active learning techniques (jigsaw, team-learning module, concept mapping, and question constructing), with consideration of demographics and previous enrollment in anatomy and/or online courses. Survey questions consisted of Likert-style, multiple-choice, ranking, and open-ended questions that asked students to indicate their level of satisfaction with the active learning techniques. One hundred seventy Medical Science master's students completed the online anatomy course and all seven surveys. Results showed that students were significantly more satisfied with question constructing and jigsaw than with concept mapping and team-learning module. Additionally, historically excluded groups (underrepresented racial minorities) were generally more satisfied with active learning than non-minority groups. Age, gender, and previous experience with anatomy did not influence the level of satisfaction. However, students with a higher-grade point average (GPA), those with only a bachelor's degree, and those with no previous online course experience were more satisfied with active learning than students who had a lower GPA, those holding a graduate/professional degree, and those with previous online course experience. Cumulatively, these findings support the beneficial use of active learning in online anatomy courses.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1391161
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGjKbKedIWUsmIEiTVN7ICaAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP4ZiSY0sNguBfV7NAIBEICBmt4dJTw2bLH3g5a7ojeDWaHDNhq2okCkoyslsj_zCe3N8KwIQfMPmaYASVZN_X11rWIOZgAvZLI9MiX2GhYVfNjTg_hZSl1xqR0t00l9P40JnV3ZH-4SG2oz6VDcNkg-MB__dEA5r5Rsu7luhho7m7MuwEsKuwv6Wyl5UBG0AkByRW8zbUvp_urBZH6ybnHxjxSsSU8HJ2jEgfg=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0171369478;[8z8k]01sep.23;2023Sep06.06:34;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0171369478-1">A mixed method analysis of student satisfaction with active learning techniques in an online graduate anatomy course: Consideration of demographics and previous course enrollment </title> <p>Online learning has become an essential part of mainstream higher education. With increasing enrollments in online anatomy courses, a better understanding of effective teaching techniques for the online learning environment is critical. Active learning has previously shown many benefits in face‐to‐face anatomy courses, including increases in student satisfaction. Currently, no research has measured student satisfaction with active learning techniques implemented in an online graduate anatomy course. This study compares student satisfaction across four different active learning techniques (jigsaw, team‐learning module, concept mapping, and question constructing), with consideration of demographics and previous enrollment in anatomy and/or online courses. Survey questions consisted of Likert‐style, multiple‐choice, ranking, and open‐ended questions that asked students to indicate their level of satisfaction with the active learning techniques. One hundred seventy Medical Science master's students completed the online anatomy course and all seven surveys. Results showed that students were significantly more satisfied with question constructing and jigsaw than with concept mapping and team‐learning module. Additionally, historically excluded groups (underrepresented racial minorities) were generally more satisfied with active learning than non‐minority groups. Age, gender, and previous experience with anatomy did not influence the level of satisfaction. However, students with a higher‐grade point average (GPA), those with only a bachelor's degree, and those with no previous online course experience were more satisfied with active learning than students who had a lower GPA, those holding a graduate/professional degree, and those with previous online course experience. Cumulatively, these findings support the beneficial use of active learning in online anatomy courses.</p> <p>Keywords: active learning; anatomy education; e‐learning; higher education; student learning</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171369478-3">The problem</hd> <p>The utilization of online learning has steadily increased in higher education for decades, including in the health professions.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>] The most recent data from the U.S. Department of Education indicates that of approximately 3.1 million graduate students, around 1.1 million have enrolled in at least one online course during the years of 2015 and 2016.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>] More specifically, approximately 47% of graduate health professional students have enrolled in at least one online course, with 27% enrolled exclusively in online courses during the years of 2015 and 2016.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>] Further, while overall college enrollment has decreased in the U.S., enrollment in online courses has steadily increased.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>] As interest in online education enrollment continues to rise, many post‐secondary institutions face the challenge of how best to teach in an online learning environment.[[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]] This is particularly true for anatomy, a subject that has long been taught in a laboratory setting, which educators have found difficult to transition into an online course.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]</p> <p>Anatomy is widely recognized as a cornerstone course within the health professions.[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref14">11</reflink>] Moreover, many health professions programs have begun to transition graduate in‐person anatomy courses from traditional learning (i.e., solely lecture‐focused presentation) to active learning approaches (i.e., students actively participate in their own learning process)[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>] as previous research has shown that active learning is associated with improvements in student satisfaction, engagement, enjoyment, and academic performance.[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref21">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>] Furthermore, researchers have found that active learning has narrowed the achievement gap for historically excluded student groups (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander) in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref25">22</reflink>] Still, anatomy educators have struggled in the past to create an online format for lectures and labs that are engaging, motivating, and an efficient model for online learning.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-4">BACKGROUND</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171369478-5">Benefits of online learning</hd> <p>Online learning refers to any learning that takes place over the internet, where the student and teacher are physically separated.[[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref29">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]] Attending class from any location and during a time most convenient for students' learning has been identified as a foremost benefit of online learning.[[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref34">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]] Furthermore, online learning has allowed students to work at their own pace while advancing through the courses' curriculum.[[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>]] Accordingly, the flexibility in attendance and pace afforded by online learning permits greater access than traditional face‐to‐face courses, which require students to convene in a specific room at a designated time each week.[[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref39">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]]</p> <p>Moreover, online courses have also been associated with lower financial costs for students compared to in‐person courses in the U.S.[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref41">30</reflink>] Hanson[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref42">33</reflink>] found that on average, students enrolled in online courses at a 4‐year public institution in the U.S. saved approximately $11,000 given the reduced cost of online courses. Furthermore, enrollment in online courses often alleviates transportation costs, the need for meal plans, and other miscellaneous expenses associated with face‐to‐face courses in the U.S.[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>] For graduate anatomy, online courses typically have lower associated course fees, given the reduced and/or limited need for human donors or plasticized models in the U.S.[[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref44">34</reflink>]]</p> <p>An increase in student performance may be associated with those enrolled in online courses compared to traditional face‐to‐face courses.[[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref45">36</reflink>]] Means et al.[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>] conducted a meta‐analysis investigating student learning outcome differences between online and face‐to‐face learners and found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed statistically better than those enrolled in face‐to‐face classes. Furthermore, greater satisfaction and enjoyment may be associated with online courses compared to face‐to‐face courses.[[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref47">38</reflink>]]</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-6">Criticism of online learning</hd> <p>Despite the reported benefits of online learning, some studies have identified drawbacks, including students being less likely to engage in collaborative learning, fewer student‐faculty interactions and discussions with diverse peers, and a decrease in academic performance.[[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref50">40</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref51">42</reflink>]] Furthermore, it is important to note that although online learning has become prevalent, educators still question whether the academic rigor is comparable to traditional, in‐person learning.[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>] Some educators are concerned with the rapid growth of online courses and the comparison to in‐person learning.[[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref54">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref55">45</reflink>]] Based on this review of the literature regarding the benefits and drawbacks of online learning, we posit that further research is necessary to better understand the most effective methods of teaching anatomy in an online learning environment.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-7">Active learning</hd> <p>Active learning is defined as any instructional method that engages students in their own learning process.[[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]] Many active learning techniques have been implemented in higher education in‐person courses, such as case‐based learning, jigsaw, team‐based learning, small group discussions, one‐minute paper, flipped classroom, and concept mapping.[[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref59">46</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref60">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref61">50</reflink>]] Previous research has demonstrated that the utilization of active learning in traditional in‐person anatomy courses results in improved academic performance, improved perception and satisfaction, improved learning attitudes and increased motivation.[[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref62">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref63">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref64">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref65">40</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref66">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref67">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref68">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref69">56</reflink>]] As previously highlighted, active learning has been implemented in face‐to‐face course for decades with seemingly very little challenges, however, online courses are challenged with the only social presence between instructor and students being via the internet, which can cause a lack of engagement.[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref70">40</reflink>] Previous research has indicated several aspects, exclusively for online courses, that should be considered regarding the implementation of active learning including accessibility of course materials, value of interdisciplinary collaboration, development of community among students and instructor, encouraging valuable discussions, and the use of effective assessment methods, whereas active learning during in‐person courses can be more easily managed as it is occurring during real‐time and with the instructor and students present.[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref71">40</reflink>] Additionally, previous research has indicated that online instructors must allot more time to prepare for the implemented active learning techniques and should more thoroughly explain the active learning methods implemented to reduce confusion and improve student learning compared to in‐person instructors implementing active learning into their courses.[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref72">40</reflink>] Given the many benefits that are shown with face‐to‐face classroom‐based active learning methods, higher education is challenged by faculty, administration, and students, to produce online, student‐centered, active learning methods.[<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref73">58</reflink>]</p> <p>Active learning improves student performance compared to traditional, lecture‐based methods.[[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref74">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref75">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref76">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref77">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref78">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref79">61</reflink>]] Furthermore, researchers found improvements in comprehension and retention during anatomy courses that included active learning components.[[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref80">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref81">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref82">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref83">61</reflink>]] This conclusion bolsters the case for active learning as previous findings suggest that students who predominately must retake anatomy courses due to unsatisfactory performance are historically excluded student groups (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders).[[<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref84">63</reflink>]]</p> <p>In‐person anatomy courses that contained active learning have shown that students report improved perception of the course, along with improved motivation, positive attitudes, and academic performance.[[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref85">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref86">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref87">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref88">59</reflink>]] Further, Huitt et al.[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>] found that active learning in an in‐person, human donor dissection lab not only increased academic scores but also improved students' attitudes towards working with peers. Regarding the few online anatomy courses that have utilized active learning, researchers found increases in academic performance, engagement, satisfaction, and a decrease in the number of students with failing grades.[[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref90">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref91">65</reflink>]] Vedi and Dulloo[<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref92">65</reflink>] implemented case‐based learning in an online anatomy and physiology course and found several benefits including the development of leadership skills, enhanced learning, and improved understanding of clinical applications. However, a survey conducted by Khan et al.[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref93">40</reflink>] found that although the majority of faculty teaching online courses were concerned with student engagement, they were still hesitant to include active learning in their courses.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-8">Student satisfaction with online and active learning</hd> <p>Student satisfaction has been a foremost focus for educators as research has shown that students with greater satisfaction, result in having greater retention, increased academic performance, and overall enjoyment.[[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref94">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref95">66</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref96">68</reflink>]] Research findings are mixed regarding satisfaction when comparing online and in‐person courses. Some studies have indicated that satisfaction is the same or greater in online courses compared to in‐person learning,[[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref97">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref98">70</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref99">72</reflink>]] while other studies have indicated that students are more satisfied with in‐person learning.[[<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref100">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref101">74</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref102">76</reflink>]] In a U.S. student satisfaction survey from 896 colleges and universities, online learners were shown to be more satisfied with their learning experience than in‐person students (Ruffalo Noel Levitz Satisfaction‐Priorities[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref103">39</reflink>]). However, in a previous study conducted by Attardi et al.[<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref104">74</reflink>], researchers found that when an online anatomy course was compared with an in‐person anatomy course, students in the online course felt the lecture and laboratory were not conducive to learning and were thus, less satisfied. Similarly, Ke and Kwak[<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref105">78</reflink>] examined whether online learning satisfaction would be consistent across ethnicity groups and found that minority students were less satisfied with online learning than other non‐minority students. Additional research has shown that minority students are less satisfied with online learning.[<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref106">79</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref107">80</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref108">81</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref109">82</reflink>] As demonstrated here and concluded by Lim et al.[<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref110">53</reflink>], further research must be conducted to better understand the satisfaction of learning in an online anatomy course.</p> <p>Traditionally, higher education within the health professions has been focused on teaching large amounts of information to students in a lecture‐centered format.[[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref111">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref112">83</reflink>]] However, there has been an urge in higher education to implement active learning techniques, as current literature reports increased student satisfaction and improved learning outcomes during in‐person courses.[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref113">13</reflink>] Several studies have compared active learning methods to traditional, lecture‐based methods in the same course. Reports from multiple researchers found that the students in the active learning courses are more satisfied and enjoyed the course more than the traditional, lecture‐based course.[[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref114">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref115">68</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref116">84</reflink>]] Entezari and Javdan[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref117">15</reflink>] compared an anatomy and physiology flipped classroom with minimal discussions and a flipped classroom with active learning techniques. Researchers found that the flipped classroom with active learning techniques not only improved students' attitudes but also exam performance.[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref118">15</reflink>] Additional studies have found similar outcomes.[[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref119">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref120">66</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref121">68</reflink>]] Even fewer studies have investigated student satisfaction with active learning techniques when integrated into an online learning environment. Metz and Metz[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref122">54</reflink>] compared an online, asynchronous dental physiology course with active learning techniques implemented to a traditional, lecture‐based methods. Researchers found that students had a more positive perception of active learning, a higher perceived effectiveness of the lecturer, a greater ability to pay attention, more motivation to study, and increased confidence with the material.[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref123">54</reflink>] Furthermore, Lim et al.[<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref124">53</reflink>] implemented active learning and discussions into an online dental course and found students performed better with self‐study, followed by discussions with peers.</p> <p>Currently, there is limited research on the comparison of various active learning techniques in an online course. It is imperative for health professions educators engaging in online learning to better understand which active leaning techniques student are most satisfied with, to promote an increase in academic performance, retention, and overall greater enjoyment of the courses.[<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref125">86</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref126">87</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref127">88</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-9">Objective for current study</hd> <p>Despite the recognized benefits and continued increase in popularity of online learning, only two studies[[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref128">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref129">52</reflink>]] have previously investigated student satisfaction with different active learning methods in online courses. Accordingly, there continues to be a limited understanding of how the implementation of active learning influences student satisfaction in online courses broadly, and especially in relation to anatomy. Thus, more information is needed to assist anatomy educators in identifying effective online active learning methods for their student populations. Consequently, the objective of this study is to investigate student satisfaction across four different active learning activities in an online, graduate‐level anatomy course, with particular consideration of student demographics and previous online and/or anatomy course enrollment.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-10">MATERIALS AND METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171369478-11">Participants and course design</hd> <p>This study was conducted at the University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC), located in Fort Worth, Texas. To be included, participants (<emph>n</emph> = 170) needed to be enrolled in the asynchronous, online Structural Anatomy course, a part of the online Master of Science in Medical Science degree program during the Spring 2022 semester. For students to be admitted to the Medical Sciences program, requirements include that student must have completed a bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited university, with at least 6 credits of general or inorganic chemistry and 2 credits of laboratory course work, at least 12 credits of biology and 2 credits of laboratory course work, at least 6 credits of physics and 2 credits of laboratory course work, at least 6 credits of organic chemistry and 2 credits of laboratory course work, 6 credits of English, and 3 credits of statistics. Courses in human physiology and anatomy, cell and molecular biology, and microbiology were highly recommended as part of the biology credits. This study was granted exempt approval by UNTHSC's Institutional Review Board, Approval Number 1792843.</p> <p>The Structural Anatomy course was separated into five 3‐week units: upper‐limb musculoskeletal, lower‐limb musculoskeletal, head and neck, cardiopulmonary, and gastrointestinal and renal systems (learning outcomes and course structure in Appendix S1). The course was taught by a single instructor. During each unit, the first 2 weeks were allocated to learning new material. The third week was dedicated to the active learning assignment (part 1 due on Monday, part 2 due on Wednesday), followed by the unit exam (opened Friday and closed Monday). The active learning assignments were part of the course and did not introduce new material. The assignments provided supplemental, graded coursework on the testable material. All active learning activities were completed primarily through the discussion board aspect of Canvas Learning Management System.</p> <p>At the beginning of the course, students were separated into 5 groups (<emph>n</emph> = approximately 34) in which they would remain for the semester. During each unit, four out of the five groups participated in a different active learning activity. The remaining group served as the control group and was not assigned to an active learning activity for that unit. In each group, students were further divided into sub‐groups (approximately 11 students in each subgroup) and a specific designated objective was assigned to each sub‐group pertaining to content in each unit. For each new unit, the groups rotated to a new active learning activity and sub‐group objectives changed to reflect the current unit's material. Thus, each student was ultimately assigned a group number and a sub‐group letter that carried them through each active learning activity in the course (e.g., a student assigned into Group 3, subgroup A, would be assigned to the 3A activity in each unit) (Table 1). At the end of the semester, each group had participated in all four active learning activities and served as the control group for one unit. All active learning techniques were worth the same point value within the course grading structure.</p> <p>1 TABLE Group assignments of active learning techniques and assigned objectives per unit</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Unit 1</th><th align="left">Unit 2</th><th align="left">Unit 3</th><th align="left">Unit 4</th><th align="left">Unit 5</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Group 1</td><td>JigsawA: Brachial plexusB: Thumb musclesC: Upper limb blood flow</td><td>QCA: Lower limb blood flowB: Knee ligamentsC: Lower limb inn.</td><td>CMA: Orbit cranial nervesB: Mouth cranial nervesC: Larynx cranial nerves</td><td>TLMA: Respiration musclesB: Heart blood supplyC: Heart conduction</td><td>Control</td></tr><tr><td>Group 2</td><td>Control</td><td>JigsawA: Lower limb blood flowB: Knee ligamentsC: Lower limb inn.</td><td>QCA: Orbit cranial nervesB: Mouth cranial nervesC: Larynx cranial nerves</td><td>CMA: Respiration musclesB: Heart blood supplyC: Heart conduction</td><td>TLMA: Foregut blood supply/inn.B: Midgut blood supply/inn.C: Hindgut blood supply/inn.</td></tr><tr><td>Group 3</td><td>TLMA: Brachial plexusB: Thumb musclesC: Upper limb blood flow</td><td>Control</td><td>JigsawA: Orbit cranial nervesB: Mouth cranial nervesC: Larynx cranial nerves</td><td>QCA: Respiration musclesB: Heart blood supplyC: Heart conduction</td><td>CMA: Foregut blood supply/inn.B: Midgut blood supply/inn.C: Hindgut blood supply/inn.</td></tr><tr><td>Group 4</td><td>CMA: Brachial plexusB: Thumb musclesC: Upper limb blood flow</td><td>TLMA: Lower limb blood flowB: Knee ligamentsC: Lower limb inn.</td><td>Control</td><td>JigsawA: Respiration musclesB: Heart blood supplyC: Heart conduction</td><td>QCA: Foregut blood supply/inn.B: Midgut blood supply/inn.C: Hindgut blood supply/inn.</td></tr><tr><td>Group 5</td><td>QCA: Brachial plexusB: Thumb musclesC: Upper limb blood flow</td><td>CMA: Lower limb blood flowB: Knee ligamentsC: Lower limb inn.</td><td>TLMA: Orbit cranial nervesB: Mouth cranial nervesC: Larynx cranial nerves</td><td>Control</td><td>JigsawA: Foregut blood supply/inn.B: Midgut blood supply/inn.C: Hindgut blood supply/inn.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: CM=concept mapping; QC=question constructing; TLM=team‐learning module, inn, innervation.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-12">Active learning techniques</hd> <p>The four active learning techniques included in the study were jigsaw, team‐learning module (TLM), concept mapping (CM), and question constructing (QC). Each student participated in all four active learning activities throughout the semester. The ongoing section includes information about each active learning technique and how it was adapted for an online, asynchronous anatomy course.</p> <p> <emph>Jigsaw</emph> is a cooperative group activity in which students work interdependently to achieve a common goal.[[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref130">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref131">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref132">62</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref133">89</reflink>]] During jigsaw activities, students learn the material more intentionally and develop strategies to teach their peers. Jigsaw has been argued to foster a deeper understanding of the material[[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref134">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref135">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref136">62</reflink>]] and increase enjoyment of the course content during in‐person courses.[[<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref137">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref138">55</reflink>]] In the current study, the jigsaw technique was separated into two phases, an "expert" phase followed by a "teaching" phase. During the expert phase, each student created a single‐slide PowerPoint presentation and recorded a three‐minute mini‐lecture on their assigned sub‐group objective. During the teaching phase, students posted their recorded PowerPoint slides to a shared discussion board. Teaching groups were comprised of students from each expert group (i.e., objective sub‐group), allowing every student the chance to access peer‐created material on all assigned sub‐group objectives.</p> <p> <emph>Team‐Learning Module</emph> (TLM) is an adaptation of the Team‐Based Learning™ (TBL) model. It is a collaborative learning strategy that follows a three‐step process: preparation, an individual readiness assurance test (iRAT), and a team readiness assurance test (tRAT).[[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref139">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref140">90</reflink>]] Such activities have been linked to an increase in academic performance, understanding of the course materials, and enjoyment in in‐person courses.[[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref141">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref142">92</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref143">94</reflink>]] In the current study, the preparation phase required students to learn their designated sub‐group objective for that unit. Students' knowledge regarding their specific objective was then individually assessed by a five‐question iRAT quiz using Canvas Quizzes secured with Respondus Lockdown Browser. Once the scheduled iRAT quiz closed and locked for viewing, students were tasked with completing a shared 10‐question worksheet (tRAT) inclusive of each assigned unit learning objective. The tRAT was completed with students from the different sub‐groups objectives and submitted to Canvas Assignments by a single group member.</p> <p> <emph>Concept Mapping</emph> (CM) is an approach that scaffolds knowledge by relating novel information back to the original topic; students are expected to not only think about the range of concepts connected to the main topic, but also to identify what connects those ideas.[[<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref144">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref145">95</reflink>]] Concept mapping has been argued to yield a greater understanding of the course materials,[<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref146">51</reflink>] along with an increase in academic performance during in‐person learning.[[<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref147">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref148">97</reflink>]] During the current study, phase one required students to create a PowerPoint concept map connecting course information to the main topic of their designated objective. Additionally, students created a question from their concept map content for group members to answer. Phase two required students to comment on the correct answers for two peers' concept map questions.</p> <p> <emph>Question Constructing</emph> (QC) is an approach whereby students construct exam‐style questions. Questionconstructing activities have been shown to be associated with greater student satisfaction regarding their learning experience.[<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref149">98</reflink>] During the current study, phase one tasked students with developing and posting two original multiple‐choice questions to a group discussion board. Students were provided examples of Bloom's Taxonomy[<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref150">99</reflink>] and were asked to create questions from two different levels of Bloom's Taxonomy and indicate the level in their posts. During phase two, students responded to two of their peers' own questions.</p> <p>In each unit, one group cycled through as the <emph>control group</emph>. The control group did not participate in any active learning activity for that unit and no points were assigned.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-13">Data collection</hd> <p>Seven mandatory surveys were administered to the students enrolled in the online Structural Anatomy course throughout the semester (1 pre‐course survey, 5 interim‐course surveys, and 1 post‐course survey). Qualtrics software (Qualtrics LLC, Provo, Utah) was used to construct and administer the surveys through the Canvas learning management system (LTI integration by Drieam). Survey questions consisted of five‐point Likert‐scale, multiple‐choice, ranking, and open‐ended questions.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-14">Data coding</hd> <p>At the beginning of the semester, students were asked to complete a pre‐course survey comprised of demographic, questions regarding gender, race, age, and previous course enrollment questions, including previous major and minor degree, overall undergraduate GPA, and previous online and/or anatomy course enrollment. Following this survey, students were de‐identified using a randomly assigned six‐digit number and were assigned to their active learning group. Certain survey questions had points associated with the answers, including age (25 or younger: 0 points, 26–30: 1 point, 31–35: 1 point, 36 or older: 0 points), completed major degree (biomedical sciences: 2 points, exercise science/kinesiology: 2 points, biology: 1 point, all others: 0 points), completed minor degree (biology: 2 points, all others: 0 points), overall undergraduate grade point average (GPA) (2.0–2.5 GPA: 1 point, 2.6–3.0 GPA: 2 points, 3.1–3.5 GPA: 3 points, 3.6–4.0 GPA: 4 points), additional degrees (master's degree: 1 point), if the student had previously enrolled in an anatomy class (1 point), if the student had previously enrolled in an online class (2 points), and if the student had enrolled in an online anatomy class (2 points). Student survey scores ranged from 1–16 points, with higher scores generally reflecting more experience in online and/or science courses, along with a higher undergraduate GPA and at an age that technology aversion is not likely to play a role, and lower scores reflecting less experience, along with a lower GPA and at an age when technology aversion is likely to play a role. Groups were formed by selecting students with a variety of experience determined by survey scores. Each active learning group contained 31–36 students and combined student scores in the group averaged between 80 and 85 points based on the pre‐course survey questions, which allowed for comparable active learning groups.</p> <p>Following each exam, an interim‐course survey was administered to all students. The surveys addressed the specific active learning technique to which they were assigned during that unit. The questions were mostly rated using a five‐point Likert scale regarding satisfaction of the active learning activities based on five characteristics: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref151">1</reflink>) preparedness, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref152">2</reflink>) usefulness, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref153">3</reflink>) productiveness, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref154">4</reflink>) appropriateness, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref155">5</reflink>) likelihood of using the active learning technique in the future in a combined score ranging from 5–25 (5 = least satisfied, 25 = most satisfied). A cumulative "entire course" score for each active learning technique across the overall course was then also calculated by averaging the means of the five individual unit surveys. The final question on the interim‐course surveys was an open‐ended question that students could write additional comments pertaining to that unit's active learning technique. Students placed in the control group also completed the interim‐course survey by indicating that they were in the control group. Additionally, the control group was given the option to answer the open‐ended question to write any additional comments pertaining to the active learning activities.</p> <p>The post‐course survey asked students to rank all the active learning techniques from best to worst based on preparedness, usefulness, productiveness, appropriateness, and likelihood of using the techniques in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-15">Data analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171369478-16">Quantitative data</hd> <p>Statistical analyses were performed using Number Cruncher Statistical System 2016 (NCSS, LLC, Kaysville, UT) with statistical significance defined as <emph>p</emph> < 0.05. Because the data in this study were not normally distributed, nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to examine differences among the active learning techniques and students' demographics (race, gender, age, undergraduate GPA). Dunn's post hoc tests were used for pairwise comparisons.[<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref156">100</reflink>] Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> tests were used to examine differences between previous course enrollment (previous anatomy enrollment, previous online course enrollment, and additional degree).</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-17">Qualitative data</hd> <p>An inductive coding process consistent with thematic coding was used to evaluate the responses obtained from students who answered the open‐ended question in the surveys.[<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref157">101</reflink>] Two independent coders (LB and TR), one who was blinded to the hypotheses (TR), read the responses. The coders then met to discuss and resolve discrepancies in the themes that each identified and assigned to the open‐ended responses. For the open‐ended question "Is there anything else you'd like to add?", five themes were identified: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref158">1</reflink>) active learning technique helped in the learning process, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref159">2</reflink>) enjoyed active learning technique, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref160">3</reflink>) did not enjoy active learning technique, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref161">4</reflink>) active learning technique was time‐consuming, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref162">5</reflink>) active learning technique was not the student's learning style.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-18">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171369478-19">Student demographics and previous course enrollment</hd> <p>The demographic and previous course enrollment survey responses for the 170 students are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>2 TABLE Demographics and previous course enrollment of students.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Demographic</th><th align="left">Count (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Age</td></tr><tr><td>25 or younger</td><td>125 (74%)</td></tr><tr><td>26–30</td><td>31 (18%)</td></tr><tr><td>31–35</td><td>11 (6%)</td></tr><tr><td>36 or older</td><td>3 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐female</td><td>108 (64%)</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐male</td><td>60 (35%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Race</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>78 (46%)</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>48 (28%)</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>25 (15%)</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed</td><td>9 (5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>10 (6%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Undergraduate GPA</td></tr><tr><td>2.0–2.5</td><td>2 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td>2.6–3.0</td><td>19 (11%)</td></tr><tr><td>3.1–3.5</td><td>105 (62%)</td></tr><tr><td>3.6–4.0</td><td>44 (26%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Previous anatomy course enrollment</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>64 (38%)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>106 (62%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Previous online course enrollment</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>48 (28%)</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>122 (72%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Abbreviations: AA=African American; GPA=grade point average.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-20">Satisfaction among active learning techniques</hd> <p>Results of Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed significant differences in satisfaction between the active learning techniques for units 1–4 separately and cumulatively across the entire course (Table 3). Specifically, for unit 1 (<emph>H</emph> = 7.9, <emph>p</emph> = 0.046), Dunn's post hoc test results (Table 4) indicated that students were significantly more satisfied with concept mapping (CM) and jigsaw than team‐learning module (TLM). For unit 2 (<emph>H</emph> = 7.9, <emph>p</emph> = 0.048), post hoc tests (Table 4) revealed that students were significantly more satisfied with question constructing (QC) than TLM and CM. Unit 3 (<emph>H</emph> = 19.3, <emph>p</emph> < 0.0001) Dunn's post hoc tests (Table 4) found that students were significantly more satisfied with CM, jigsaw, and QC than TLM. During unit 4 (<emph>H</emph> = 9.4, <emph>p</emph> = 0.024), post hoc results (Table 4) revealed that students were more satisfied with jigsaw than TLM and CM. Results for unit 5 (<emph>H</emph> = 7.6, <emph>p</emph> = 0.0545) revealed students were not significantly more satisfied with any particular active learning method (Table 4). For entire course satisfaction (H = 32.5, <emph>p</emph> < 0.0001), Dunn's post hoc test found that overall, students were significantly more satisfied with QC and jigsaw than CM and TLM (Table 4).</p> <p>3 TABLE Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis test results of reported satisfaction of the active learning techniques.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Count (<italic>n</italic>)</th><th align="left">Mean ± SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Unit 1: Upper limb musculoskeletalKruskal–Wallis test (H = 7.9, p = 0.046)</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>31</td><td>22.7 ± 2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>34</td><td>22.3 ± 2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>35</td><td>21.0 ± 4.2</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>34</td><td>20.5 ± 4.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 2: Lower limb musculoskeletalKruskal–Wallis test (H = 7.9, p = 0.048)</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>35</td><td>21.2 ± 3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>36</td><td>21.4 ± 4.1</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>34</td><td>22.7 ± 3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>31</td><td>20.9 ± 3.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 3: Head and NeckKruskal–Wallis test (H = 19.3, p < 0.0001)</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>34</td><td>22.2 ± 2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>34</td><td>21.9 ± 3.6</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>36</td><td>23.2 ± 2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>35</td><td>19.3 ± 4.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 4: CardiopulmonaryKruskal–Wallis test (H = 9.4, p = 0.024)</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>36</td><td>20.4 ± 3.7</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>31</td><td>22.9 ± 2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>34</td><td>22.0 ± 3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>34</td><td>20.4 ± 4.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 5: Gastrointestinal and renalKruskal–Wallis test (H = 7.6, p = 0.0545)</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>34</td><td>20.2 ± 3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>35</td><td>21.5 ± 4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>31</td><td>21.3 ± 3.4</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>36</td><td>19.9 ± 3.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Entire course (Units 1–5)Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 32.5, p < 0.0001)</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>34</td><td>21.3 ± 3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>34</td><td>22.0 ± 3.4</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>34</td><td>22.0 ± 3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>34</td><td>20.2 ± 4.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>p</emph>‐Values significant at alpha = 0.05 in <bold>bold</bold>.</item> <item>4 Abbreviation: SD=standard deviation.</item> <item>4 TABLE Dunn's test results comparing satisfaction among active learning techniques.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Concept mapping</th><th align="left">Jigsaw</th><th align="left">Question constructing</th><th align="left">Team‐learning module</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Unit 1: Upper limb musculoskeletal</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.5683</td><td>1.8433</td><td>2.5109</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>0.5683</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.3019</td><td>1.9891</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>1.8433</td><td>1.3019</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.7015</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>2.5109</td><td>1.9891</td><td>0.7015</td><td>0.0000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 2: Lower limb musculoskeletal</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.7781</td><td>2.1242</td><td>0.5766</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>0.7781</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.3665</td><td>1.3342</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>2.1242</td><td>1.3665</td><td>0.0000</td><td>2.6323</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>0.5766</td><td>1.3342</td><td>2.6323</td><td>0.0000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 3: Head and neck</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.0459</td><td>1.4513</td><td>2.7888*</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>0.0459</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.4048</td><td>2.8350*</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>1.4513</td><td>1.4048</td><td>0.0000</td><td>4.2910*</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>2.7888*</td><td>2.8350*</td><td>4.2910*</td><td>0.0000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 4: Cardiopulmonary</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>0.0000</td><td>2.8106*</td><td>1.9593</td><td>0.7086</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>2.8106*</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.8863</td><td>2.0907</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>1.9593</td><td>0.8863</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.2332</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>0.7086</td><td>2.0907</td><td>1.2332</td><td>0.0000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 5: Gastrointestinal and renalNo significant pair‐wise differences</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Entire course (Units 1–5)</td></tr><tr><td>Concept mapping</td><td>0.0000</td><td>2.1892</td><td>2.4056</td><td>2.5828</td></tr><tr><td>Jigsaw</td><td>2.1892</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.2164</td><td>4.7720*</td></tr><tr><td>Question constructing</td><td>2.4056</td><td>0.2164</td><td>0.0000</td><td>4.9884*</td></tr><tr><td>Team‐learning module</td><td>2.5828</td><td>4.7720*</td><td>4.9884*</td><td>0.0000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>: Regular test: Medians significantly different if <emph>z</emph>‐value >1.9600 (in <bold>bold</bold>). Bonferroni test: Medians significantly different if <emph>z</emph>‐value >2.6383 (*).</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-21">Active learning technique satisfaction among genders and age</hd> <p>Kruskal–Wallis results indicated there were no statistically significant differences regarding satisfaction among active learning techniques based on gender (Table 5). Still, respondents placed in the "other" category (<emph>n</emph> = 2) had a slightly higher mean satisfaction score (22.6) than cis‐females (21.4) and cis‐males (21.2) (Table 5). Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed no significant differences regarding active learning satisfaction based on age (Table 5). Though not significant, results revealed a general pattern in which satisfaction with active learning techniques progressively decreased with older age. Accordingly, respondents 25 years of age or younger had the highest satisfaction with active learning with a 21.5 mean satisfaction score, followed by ages 26–30 with a 21.0 mean satisfaction score, then ages 31–35 with a 20.8 mean satisfaction score, and finally 36 or older with the lowest mean satisfaction score of 20.6 (Table 5).</p> <p>5 TABLE Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis results of reported satisfaction among active learning techniques by gender and age.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Count (<italic>n</italic>)</th><th align="left">Mean ± SD</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">Count (<italic>n</italic>)</th><th align="left">Mean ± SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Unit 1: Upper limb musculoskeletal</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 4.359, p = 0.113)</td><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 1.844, p = 0.605)</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐female</td><td>86</td><td>21.8 ± 3.8</td><td>25 years or younger</td><td>95</td><td>21.8 ± 3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐male</td><td>47</td><td>21.2 ± 0.5</td><td>26–30 years of age</td><td>27</td><td>21.3 ± 4.1</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1</td><td>20.0 ± 0</td><td>31–35 years of age</td><td>9</td><td>20.9 ± 3.0</td></tr><tr><td>36 years or older</td><td>3</td><td>19.3 ± 6.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 2: Lower limb musculoskeletal</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 2.533, p = 0.282)</td><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 6.656, p = 0.084)</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐female</td><td>87</td><td>21.8 ± 3.6</td><td>25 years or younger</td><td>103</td><td>22.0 ± 3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐male</td><td>47</td><td>21.1 ± 3.8</td><td>26–30 years of age</td><td>22</td><td>20.4 ± 4.9</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>24.0 ± 1.4</td><td>31–35 years of age</td><td>9</td><td>19.2 ± 4.2</td></tr><tr><td>36 years or older</td><td>2</td><td>23.0 ± 2.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 3: Head and neck</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 1.373, p = 0.433)</td><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 0.807, p = 0.848)</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐female</td><td>91</td><td>21.5 ± 3.7</td><td>25 years or younger</td><td>102</td><td>21.8 ± 3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐male</td><td>47</td><td>21.8 ± 3.5</td><td>26–30 years of age</td><td>25</td><td>21.2 ± 5.1</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1</td><td>25.0 ± 0</td><td>31–35 years of age</td><td>10</td><td>21.1 ± 3.7</td></tr><tr><td>36 years or older</td><td>2</td><td>20.0 ± 5.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 4: Cardiopulmonary</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 0.152, p = 0.927)</td><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 2.067, p = 0.559)</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐female</td><td>85</td><td>21.2 ± 4.1</td><td>25 years or younger</td><td>99</td><td>21.2 ± 3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐male</td><td>48</td><td>21.7 ± 3.3</td><td>26–30 years of age</td><td>24</td><td>21.4 ± 3.6</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>21.5 ± 0.7</td><td>31–35 years of age</td><td>9</td><td>22.2 ± 4.5</td></tr><tr><td>36 years or older</td><td>3</td><td>23.0 ± 2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 5: Gastrointestinal and renal</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 0.558, p = 0.756)</td><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 1.743, p = 0.850)</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐female</td><td>83</td><td>20.8 ± 3.7</td><td>25 years or younger</td><td>101</td><td>20.8 ± 3.7</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐male</td><td>51</td><td>20.4 ± 4.0</td><td>26–30 years of age</td><td>26</td><td>20.6 ± 3.9</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>22.5 ± 2.1</td><td>31–35 years of age</td><td>7</td><td>20.3 ± 4.1</td></tr><tr><td>36 years or older</td><td>2</td><td>17.0 ± 5.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Entire course (Units 1–5)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 1.300, p = 0.522)</td><td align="left">Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 3.356, p = 0.450)</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐female</td><td>108</td><td>21.4 ± 2.6</td><td>25 years or younger</td><td>125</td><td>21.5 ± 2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Cis‐male</td><td>60</td><td>21.2 ± 2.4</td><td>26–30 years of age</td><td>31</td><td>21.0 ± 3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>22.6 ± 1.9</td><td>31–35 years of age</td><td>11</td><td>20.8 ± 1.8</td></tr><tr><td>36 years or older</td><td>3</td><td>20.6 ± 2.2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 Abbreviation: SD=standard deviation.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-22">Active learning technique satisfaction by races</hd> <p>Kruskal–Wallis test results found no statistically significant differences regarding satisfaction of the active learning techniques among students of different races for units 1, 2, and 3 (Table 6). However, a general pattern emerged indicating that historically excluded groups of students (Black/African Americans, Multiracial, and students placed into the "other" category) were more satisfied with the active learning techniques based on mean values (Table 6). This general pattern then reached significance for both units 4 and 5 and satisfaction for the entire course (Table 6). As shown in Table 7, during unit 4, Dunn's post hoc test results revealed that Black/African American students had a higher satisfaction towards active learning than White students. Additionally, during unit 5, Black/African American students, along with students that were placed into the "other" category, were significantly more satisfied with the active learning techniques than White students (Table 7). Furthermore, for total satisfaction, Asian, Black/African American, Multiracial and students that were placed into the "other" category were significantly more satisfied than White students (Table 7). Together, results showed that historically excluded student groups were more satisfied with the active learning techniques than White students.</p> <p>6 TABLE Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis results of reported satisfaction among active learning techniques by race.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Count (<italic>n</italic>)</th><th align="left">Mean ± SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Unit 1: Upper limb musculoskeletalKruskal–Wallis test (H = 6.184, p = 0.186)</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>57</td><td>20.6 ± 4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>43</td><td>22.0 ± 2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>19</td><td>22.8 ± 2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Multiracial</td><td>7</td><td>22.9 ± 2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>8</td><td>23.1 ± 1.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 2: Lower limb musculoskeletalKruskal–Wallis test (H = 3.816, p = 0.431)</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>63</td><td>20.9 ± 4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>40</td><td>21.9 ± 2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>18</td><td>22.4 ± 3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Multiracial</td><td>8</td><td>22.5 ± 1.8</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>7</td><td>22.9 ± 2.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 3: Head and neckKruskal–Wallis test (H = 2.118, p = 0.714)</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>68</td><td>21.4 ± 4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>34</td><td>21.3 ± 3.7</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>23</td><td>22.0 ± 2.3</td></tr><tr><td>Multiracial</td><td>6</td><td>22.0 ± 4.6</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>8</td><td>23.3 ± 1.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 4: CardiopulmonaryKruskal–Wallis test (H = 14.529, p = 0.006)</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>63</td><td>20.0 ± 4.6</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>36</td><td>22.2 ± 2.3</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>22</td><td>23.4 ± 2.1</td></tr><tr><td>Multiracial</td><td>6</td><td>22.5 ± 1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>8</td><td>22.6 ± 2.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 5: Gastrointestinal and renalKruskal–Wallis test (H = 11.575, p = 0.021)</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>61</td><td>19.6 ± 4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>39</td><td>21.0 ± 3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>18</td><td>22.1 ± 3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Multiracial</td><td>9</td><td>22.0 ± 2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>9</td><td>22.8 ± 2.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Entire course (Units 1–5)Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 34.93, p < 0.0001)</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>78</td><td>20.5 ± 3.0</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>48</td><td>21.7 ± 1.9</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>25</td><td>22.5 ± 1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Multiracial</td><td>9</td><td>22.4 ± 1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>10</td><td>22.9 ± 1.4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>p</emph>‐Values significant at alpha = 0.05 in <bold>bold</bold>.</item> <item>8 Abbreviations: AA=African American; SD=standard deviation.</item> <item>7 TABLE Dunn's test results comparing active learning satisfaction among races.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">White</th><th align="left">Asian</th><th align="left">Black/AA</th><th align="left">Multiracial</th><th align="left">Other</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Unit 1: Upper limb musculoskeletalNo significant pair‐wise differences</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 2: Lower limb musculoskeletalNo significant pair‐wise differences</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 3: Head and neckNo significant pair‐wise differences</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 4: Cardiopulmonary</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.9371</td><td>3.6064*</td><td>1.0273</td><td>1.5390</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>1.9371</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.8047</td><td>0.0775</td><td>0.4424</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>3.6064*</td><td>1.8047</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.9862</td><td>0.7641</td></tr><tr><td>Multiracial</td><td>1.0273</td><td>0.0775</td><td>0.9862</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.2569</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1.5390</td><td>0.4424</td><td>0.7641</td><td>0.2569</td><td>0.0000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 5: Gastrointestinal and renal</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.3468</td><td>2.4610</td><td>1.6341</td><td>2.5042</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>1.3468</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.3476</td><td>0.8312</td><td>1.6713</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>2.4610</td><td>1.3476</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.1876</td><td>0.5733</td></tr><tr><td>Multiracial</td><td>1.6341</td><td>0.8312</td><td>0.1876</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.6590</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2.5042</td><td>1.6713</td><td>0.5733</td><td>0.6590</td><td>0.0000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Entire course (Units 1–5)</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>0.0000</td><td>2.1035</td><td>3.5071*</td><td>2.0420</td><td>3.0462*</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>2.1035</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.7034</td><td>0.9167</td><td>1.8334</td></tr><tr><td>Black/AA</td><td>3.5071*</td><td>1.7034</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.2242</td><td>0.5804</td></tr><tr><td>Multiracial</td><td>2.0420</td><td>0.9167</td><td>0.2242</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.6624</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>3.0462*</td><td>1.8334</td><td>0.5804</td><td>0.6624</td><td>0.0000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 Abbreviation: AA=African American.</item> <item>10 <emph>Note</emph>: Regular test: Medians significantly different if <emph>z</emph>‐value >1.9600 (in <bold>bold</bold>). Bonferroni test: Medians significantly different if <emph>z</emph>‐value >2.8070 (*).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0171369478-23">Active learning technique satisfaction among undergraduate GPAs</hd> <p>Kruskal–Wallis test results indicated there were no significant differences in satisfaction of the active learning techniques when comparing undergraduate GPA during each separate unit (Table 8). However, for satisfaction across the entire course, Dunn's post hoc test results found that students with an undergraduate GPA of 3.6–4.0 were significantly more satisfied with active learning than students with an undergraduate GPA of 2.0–2.5 and 2.6–3.0 (Table 9).</p> <p>8 TABLE Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis results of reported satisfaction among active learning techniques by undergraduate GPA.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Count (<italic>n</italic>)</th><th align="left">Mean ± SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Unit 1: Upper limb musculoskeletalKruskal–Wallis test (H = 5.378, p = 0.146)</td></tr><tr><td>2.0–2.5 GPA</td><td>2</td><td>16.5 ± 2.1</td></tr><tr><td>2.6–3.0 GPA</td><td>13</td><td>22.2 ± 2.1</td></tr><tr><td>3.1–3.5 GPA</td><td>86</td><td>21.4 ± 3.8</td></tr><tr><td>3.6–4.0 GPA</td><td>33</td><td>22.2 ± 3.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 2: Lower limb musculoskeletalKruskal–Wallis test (H = 0.013, p = 0.014)</td></tr><tr><td>2.0–2.5 GPA</td><td>2</td><td>15.5 ± 5.0</td></tr><tr><td>2.6–3.0 GPA</td><td>13</td><td>20.0 ± 4.3</td></tr><tr><td>3.1–3.5 GPA</td><td>83</td><td>21.4 ± 3.7</td></tr><tr><td>3.6–4.0 GPA</td><td>38</td><td>22.8 ± 2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 3: Head and neckKruskal–Wallis test (H = 1.664, p = 0.645)</td></tr><tr><td>2.0–2.5 GPA</td><td>2</td><td>22.0 ± 0</td></tr><tr><td>2.6–3.0 GPA</td><td>17</td><td>21.8 ± 3.1</td></tr><tr><td>3.1–3.5 GPA</td><td>82</td><td>21.3 ± 3.9</td></tr><tr><td>3.6–4.0 GPA</td><td>38</td><td>22.2 ± 3.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 4: CardiopulmonaryKruskal–Wallis test (H = 2.622, p = 0.454)</td></tr><tr><td>2.0–2.5 GPA</td><td>1</td><td>25.0 ± 0</td></tr><tr><td>2.6–3.0 GPA</td><td>17</td><td>20.7 ± 4.8</td></tr><tr><td>3.1–3.5 GPA</td><td>81</td><td>21.2 ± 3.9</td></tr><tr><td>3.6–4.0 GPA</td><td>36</td><td>22.1 ± 2.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 5: Gastrointestinal and renalKruskal–Wallis test (H = 1.835, p = 0.608)</td></tr><tr><td>2.0–2.5 GPA</td><td>1</td><td>19.0 ± 0</td></tr><tr><td>2.6–3.0 GPA</td><td>16</td><td>19.9 ± 3.9</td></tr><tr><td>3.1–3.5 GPA</td><td>88</td><td>20.7 ± 4.1</td></tr><tr><td>3.6–4.0 GPA</td><td>31</td><td>21.3 ± 2.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Entire Course (Units 1–5)Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 8.714, p = 0.033)</td></tr><tr><td>2.0–2.5 GPA</td><td>2</td><td>19.0 ± 0.7</td></tr><tr><td>2.6–3.0 GPA</td><td>19</td><td>20.9 ± 2.1</td></tr><tr><td>3.1–3.5 GPA</td><td>105</td><td>21.2 ± 2.8</td></tr><tr><td>3.6–4.0 GPA</td><td>44</td><td>22.1 ± 1.9</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>11 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>p</emph>‐Values significant at alpha = 0.05 in <bold>bold</bold>.</item> <item>12 Abbreviations: GPA=grade point average; SD=standard deviation.</item> <item>9 TABLE Dunn's test results comparing satisfaction among undergraduate GPAs.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">2.0–2.5 GPA</th><th align="left">2.6–3.0 GPA</th><th align="left">3.1–3.5 GPA</th><th align="left">3.6–4.0 GPA</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Unit 1: Upper limb musculoskeletalNo significant pair‐wise differences</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 2: Lower limb musculoskeletal</td></tr><tr><td>2.0–2.5 GPA</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.2141</td><td>1.7938</td><td>2.3279</td></tr><tr><td>2.6–3.0 GPA</td><td>1.2141</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.2119</td><td>2.3861</td></tr><tr><td>3.1–3.5 GPA</td><td>1.7938</td><td>1.2119</td><td>0.0000</td><td>2.0687</td></tr><tr><td>3.6–4.0 GPA</td><td>2.3279</td><td>2.3861</td><td>2.0687</td><td>0.0000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 3: Head and neckNo significant pair‐wise differences</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 4: CardiopulmonaryNo significant pair‐wise differences</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 5: Gastrointestinal and renalNo significant pair‐wise differences</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Entire Course (Units 1–5)</td></tr><tr><td>2.0–2.5 GPA</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.2075</td><td>1.6052</td><td>2.0659</td></tr><tr><td>2.6–3.0 GPA</td><td>1.2075</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.9955</td><td>2.1710</td></tr><tr><td>3.1–3.5 GPA</td><td>1.6052</td><td>0.9955</td><td>0.0000</td><td>1.9367</td></tr><tr><td>3.6–4.0 GPA</td><td>2.0659</td><td>2.1710</td><td>1.9367</td><td>0.0000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>13 <emph>Note</emph>: Regular test: Medians significantly different if <emph>z</emph>‐value >1.9600 (in <bold>bold</bold>). Bonferroni test: Medians significantly different if <emph>z</emph>‐value >2.6383 (*).</item> <item>14 Abbreviation: GPA=grade point average.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0171369478-24">Active learning technique satisfaction between previous course enrollments</hd> <p>Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> test results revealed no significant differences in student satisfaction for the active learning techniques when comparing previous online course enrollment for units 1, 3, 4, 5, and the entire course satisfaction (Table 10). However, during unit 2, there was a significant difference in satisfaction of active learning between those who had previously enrolled in an online course and those who had not (Table 10). Specifically, for unit 2 (<emph>Z</emph> = −2.0735, <emph>p</emph> = 0.038), Dunn's post hoc test indicated that students with no previous online course experience were more satisfied with the implemented active learning techniques than those with previous online course experience (Table 10). Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> tests found there were no significant differences when comparing previous anatomy course enrollment (Table 10).</p> <p>10 TABLE Descriptive statistics and Mann–Whitney test results of reported satisfaction of active learning techniques based on previous online course enrollment and previous anatomy course enrollment.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Count (<italic>n</italic>)</th><th align="left">Mean ± SD</th><th align="left" /><th align="left">Count (<italic>n</italic>)</th><th align="left">Mean ± SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Unit 1: Upper limb musculoskeletal</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Previous online enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = −0.0442, p = 0.965)</td><td align="left">Previous anatomy enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = 0.2706, p = 0.787)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>40</td><td>21.7 ± 3.5</td><td>Yes</td><td>51</td><td>21.7 ± 3.4</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>94</td><td>21.6 ± 3.6</td><td>No</td><td>83</td><td>21.5 ± 3.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 2: Lower limb musculoskeletal</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Online enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = −2.0735, p = 0.038)</td><td align="left">Anatomy enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = −1.0579, p = 0.290)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>38</td><td>21.0 ± 3.2</td><td>Yes</td><td>53</td><td>21.0 ± 4.2</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>98</td><td>21.8 ± 3.8</td><td>No</td><td>83</td><td>21.9 ± 3.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 3: Head and neck</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Online enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = −0.574, p = 0.566)</td><td align="left">Anatomy enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = 0.3429, p = 0.732)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>37</td><td>21.3 ± 3.6</td><td>Yes</td><td>52</td><td>21.6 ± 4.0</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>102</td><td>21.7 ± 3.6</td><td>No</td><td>87</td><td>21.6 ± 3.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 4: Cardiopulmonary</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Online enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = −0.9074, p = 0.377)</td><td align="left">Anatomy enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = 0.3633, p = 0.716)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>38</td><td>20.6 ± 4.6</td><td>Yes</td><td>51</td><td>21.6 ± 3.6</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>97</td><td>21.7 ± 3.4</td><td>No</td><td>84</td><td>21.3 ± 3.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 5: Gastrointestinal and renal</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Online enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = 0.8836, p = 0.377)</td><td align="left">Anatomy enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = −0.3694, p = 0.712)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>39</td><td>21.3 ± 3.2</td><td>Yes</td><td>49</td><td>20.7 ± 3.6</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>97</td><td>20.5 ± 4.0</td><td>No</td><td>87</td><td>20.7 ± 4.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Entire course (Units 1–5)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Online enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = −0.7865, p = 0.432)</td><td align="left">Anatomy enrollmentMann–Whitney test (Z = 0.1867, p = 0.852)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>48</td><td>21.2 ± 2.4</td><td>Yes</td><td>64</td><td>21.3 ± 2.8</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>122</td><td>21.5 ± 2.6</td><td>No</td><td>106</td><td>21.4 ± 2.3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>15 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>p</emph>‐Values significant at alpha = 0.05 in <bold>bold</bold>.</item> <item>16 Abbreviation: SD=standard deviation.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0171369478-25">Degree attainment</hd> <p>Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> tests revealed no statistically significant differences regarding the satisfaction of active learning between students with or without an additional postbaccalaureate degree for any of the five individual course units (Table 11). However, for satisfaction over the entire course, results showed students holding only a bachelor's degree were significantly more satisfied with the active learning techniques than those with an additional graduate or professional degree (Table 11).</p> <p>11 TABLE Descriptive statistics and Mann–Whitney test results of reported satisfaction of active learning techniques based on degree attainment.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Count (<italic>n</italic>)</th><th align="left">Mean ± SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Unit 1: Upper limb musculoskeletalMann–Whitney test (Z = −0.9933, p = 0.318)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree only</td><td>104</td><td>21.9 ± 3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Postbaccalaureate degree</td><td>30</td><td>20.6 ± 4.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 2: Lower limb musculoskeletalMann–Whitney test (Z = −1.2165, p = 0.224)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree only</td><td>107</td><td>22.0 ± 3.0</td></tr><tr><td>Postbaccalaureate degree</td><td>29</td><td>20.1 ± 5.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 3: Head and neckMann–Whitney test (Z = −0.8672, p = 0.386)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree only</td><td>102</td><td>21.8 ± 3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Postbaccalaureate degree</td><td>37</td><td>21.2 ± 3.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 4: CardiopulmonaryMann–Whitney test (Z = −1.9453, p = 0.052)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree only</td><td>103</td><td>21.8 ± 3.4</td></tr><tr><td>Postbaccalaureate degree</td><td>32</td><td>20.1 ± 4.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Unit 5: Gastrointestinal and renalMann–Whitney test (Z = −0.6349, p = 0.526)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree only</td><td>104</td><td>20.9 ± 3.6</td></tr><tr><td>Postbaccalaureate degree</td><td>32</td><td>20.2 ± 4.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Entire course (Units 1–5)Mann–Whitney test (Z = −2.1251, p = 0.036)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's degree only</td><td>130</td><td>21.7 ± 2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Postbaccalaureate degree</td><td>40</td><td>20.5 ± 3.3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>17 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>p</emph>‐Values significant at alpha = 0.05 in <bold>bold</bold>.</item> <item>18 Abbreviation: SD=standard deviation.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0171369478-26">Qualitative data</hd> <p>Data analysis revealed five themes regarding students' opinions on the active learning techniques: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref163">1</reflink>) active learning technique helped in the learning process, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref164">2</reflink>) enjoyed active learning technique, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref165">3</reflink>) did not enjoy active learning technique, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref166">4</reflink>) active learning technique was time‐consuming, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref167">5</reflink>) active learning technique was not the student's learning style.</p> <p>The responses for each active learning technique are shown in Figure 1. Across all active learning techniques, students routinely referenced "helped learning" (theme 1). Jigsaw received the greatest number of comments for this theme (<emph>n</emph> = 16), while TLM (<emph>n</emph> = 14) and CM (<emph>n</emph> = 14) had equal number of responses. QC had the least number of responses (<emph>n</emph> = 11) for "helped learning". Enjoyment (theme 2) was also commonly brought up with QC (<emph>n</emph> = 9) and CM (<emph>n</emph> = 9) compared to jigsaw (<emph>n</emph> = 6) and TLM (<emph>n</emph> = 5). Comments related to "did not like the technique" (theme 3) were relatively infrequent, with TLM (<emph>n</emph> = 4) and CM (<emph>n</emph> = 4) receiving slightly more comments than jigsaw (<emph>n</emph> = 3) and QC (<emph>n</emph> = 1). For "time‐consuming" (theme 4), CM had substantially more (<emph>n</emph> = 7) comments compared to jigsaw (<emph>n</emph> = 3), TLM (<emph>n</emph> = 2), and QC (<emph>n</emph> = 1). Comments related to "not the students' learning style" (theme 5) were infrequent across all techniques (TLM: <emph>n</emph> = 1; CM: <emph>n</emph> = 1; QC: <emph>n</emph> = 2; jigsaw: <emph>n</emph> = 0).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01sep23/ase2276-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase2276-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Student's qualitative results based on active learning techniques. CM, = concept mapping; QC=question constructing; TLM =team‐learning module." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Students' responses regarding the active learning techniques for each unit are shown in Figure 2. Across all units, the greatest number of comments regarded "helped learning" (theme 1), with unit 5 (<emph>n</emph> = 16) and unit 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 14) having the highest number. Unit 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 11), 3 (<emph>n</emph> = 13), and 4 (<emph>n</emph> = 12) had slightly fewer responses for "helped learning". Following, "enjoyment" (theme 2) was brought up in student responses, with the greatest number during unit 4 (<emph>n</emph> = 8) and 5 (<emph>n</emph> = 7), while unit 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 6), 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 5), and 3 (<emph>n</emph> = 4) had fewer responses. "Time‐consuming" (theme 3) had the greatest number of responses during unit 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 6). Unit 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 4), 3 (<emph>n</emph> = 4), 4 (<emph>n</emph> = 1), and 5 (<emph>n</emph> = 1) had few comments regarding the 3rd theme of "time‐consuming". Comments related to "did not like the technique" (theme 4) were seldom, with greatest number during unit 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 4) and 5 (<emph>n</emph> = 3), with units 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 1), 3 (<emph>n</emph> = 2), and 4 (<emph>n</emph> = 2) having fewer comments. Comments related to "not the student's learning style" (theme 5) were infrequent, with only unit 4 (<emph>n</emph> = 3) and 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 1) having that response.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01sep23/ase2276-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase2276-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Student's qualitative results of the active learning techniques based on the course's unit. CM =concept mapping; QC =question constructing; TLM =team‐learning module." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171369478-29">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to compare student satisfaction among different active learning techniques in an online, asynchronous graduate anatomy course. It also evaluated the effects of demographics and previous course enrollment on active learning technique satisfaction. Results from the current study revealed that significant differences in student satisfaction exist among four active learning techniques, with students overall being more satisfied with question constructing (QC) and jigsaw, than concept mapping (CM) and team‐learning module (TLM). Additionally, this study found that historically excluded student populations (Asian, Black/African Americans, Multiracial, and students classified as "other" non‐White category) were more satisfied with the active learning techniques than White students. Conversely, results showed no significant differences in satisfaction for active learning techniques based on gender, age, or previous anatomy course enrollment. However, students who did not have an additional graduate/professional degree were more satisfied with active learning than those that had already earned an advanced degree in another area (e.g., JD, MBA, MPH). Additionally, students with a higher undergraduate GPA were more satisfied with active learning than those with lower GPAs. Finally, students who had no previous online course experience were more satisfied with active learning than those who had previously enrolled in online courses. Results of the current study show that the implementation of active learning in an online anatomy course can be potentially useful by providing a greater learning experience for certain students, including those who are a part of a historically excluded student population group, students with postbaccalaureate degrees or online course experience, and those with a higher undergraduate GPA.</p> <p>Although recent studies have shown an increase in satisfaction with the implementation of active learning, few have investigated which active learning techniques students are most satisfied with.[[<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref168">98</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref169">102</reflink>]] This study found that students were generally more satisfied with QC and jigsaw when compared to CM and TLM. The qualitative results provided further insights as to why students preferred QC and jigsaw, commonly noting that these two techniques both reinforced concepts and allowed students to experience the thought processes of others. For example, one student wrote "I enjoyed this week's learning activity [QC]. It allowed me to formulate a question for my peers which resulted in me reinforcing the information. It was also nice to see the different questions my peers came up with and how they interpreted the assignment." Similarly, another student said "I really enjoyed the jigsaw task because it required us to really become the professor of the topic we were assigned. I found that after the assignment was complete that I had a much better understanding of the arteries and their pathways." These findings are similar to those found by Tatachar et al.[<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref170">98</reflink>] who found that students in an in‐person pharmacy course were most satisfied with the active learning techniques that allowed for a team‐like setting especially those, such as QC, that required collaboration and application of knowledge. Other studies investigating in‐person courses have also found differences between active learning modalities, showing that students prefer e‐clickers to discussion groups,[<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref171">103</reflink>] case‐based learning to team‐based learning,[[<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref172">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref173">104</reflink>]] jigsaw to student team achievement division,[<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref174">105</reflink>] and group discussions to presentations.[<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref175">106</reflink>] Thus, further research into which active learning techniques students are most satisfied with during online anatomy courses is needed, along with a better understanding of why students prefer certain techniques.</p> <p>This study also found that historically excluded student groups (Black/African American, Multiracial, and "other" non‐White) were more satisfied with the implemented active learning techniques than White students. This study thus augments a recent meta‐analysis conducted by Theobald et al.[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref176">22</reflink>] which showed that active learning in STEM courses leads to an increase in academic scores of underrepresented minority students and is associated with a lower drop‐out rate among minority students in STEM. Similarly, a study by Birk and Corbit[<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref177">63</reflink>] found that students from a lower socioeconomic status background were more satisfied with active learning techniques in an undergraduate anatomy and physiology course. In conjunction with these earlier studies, the findings of this study further support the assertion that historically excluded student groups are most satisfied with active learning techniques and receive substantial benefits from the implementation of such teaching modalities. These results suggest that widespread implementation of active learning in the online classroom would increase overall educational satisfaction among historically excluded students, which has been shown to be directly related to improved academic performance.[<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref178">86</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref179">87</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref180">88</reflink>]</p> <p>There were no significant differences in satisfaction of active learning when examined by gender or controlling for age. While at least one study[<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref181">107</reflink>] has suggested that active learning has greatest beneficial impacts on course outcomes for females, other studies[<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref182">69</reflink>] have similarly found a lack of gender differences as seen in the current study. Conversely, differences in satisfaction for active learning between students belonging to different age groups were not found to be statistically significant, a consistent pattern toward older students being less satisfied with the active learning techniques was nevertheless apparent in the data. Previous research by Simonds and Brock[<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref183">108</reflink>] regarding age‐based preferences for active learning has found that younger students tended to prefer active learning strategies and older students preferred traditional lectures. While the results of the current study appear to lend very tentative support for the previous findings of Simonds and Brock,[<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref184">108</reflink>] several studies have argued that age does not influence student satisfaction with active learning.[[<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref185">69</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref186">109</reflink>]] More substantive research in this area is clearly needed.</p> <p>This study found that satisfaction with active learning was significantly influenced by undergraduate GPA. Specifically, students with a high incoming GPA (i.e., 3.6–4.0) were typically found to be significantly more satisfied with active learning compared to those with a low GPA (i.e., 2.0–2.5). While incoming undergraduate GPA has not previously been compared to satisfaction of active learning, recent literature has found that grades within a course generally impact satisfaction with active learning in that same course.[<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref187">69</reflink>] Previous research has also shown that preceding academic performance is highly predictive of future course outcomes,[<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref188">110</reflink>] with final anatomy course grades strongly correlated with incoming GPA.[<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref189">111</reflink>] Together, the findings of the current study suggest that those with a higher GPA are more likely to succeed in an online anatomy course and are also more likely to enjoy active learning activities that supplement traditional learning.</p> <p>This study found no statistical difference when comparing satisfaction of active learning techniques between students who had previously enrolled in an anatomy course and those with no previous anatomy experience. This finding is concordant with previous research that has shown that prior anatomy course experiences does not influence student success rates for either anatomy or anatomy and physiology courses.[[<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref190">112</reflink>]] Additionally, this study found that students that had did not have previously online course experience were more satisfied with the active learning techniques than those who had previous online course experience. While no study has investigated the role of previous online course experience on satisfaction, Hixon et al.[<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref191">114</reflink>] investigated the impact of previous online course experiences on students' perceptions of course quality. Researchers found that experienced online learners had greater expectations for the instructor and generally had the greatest needs of the instructor, while novice online learners indicated it was important for the courses and instructors to address guidelines for the course explicitly.[<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref192">114</reflink>] The current study's results suggest that prior online course experience does impact the satisfaction of active learning techniques in an online anatomy course, contradicting the current literature that explains experienced online students are more satisfied with the online learning environment.[<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref193">114</reflink>] These results suggest that anatomy educators concerned about previous anatomy course enrollment contributing to the satisfaction of active learning does not need to be considered when implementing active learning into their course, however, previous online course enrollment should be taken into consideration.</p> <p>Finally, this study also showed that graduate students holding only a bachelor's degree were significantly more satisfied with the active learning techniques than those already possessing another graduate or professional degree. Gonsar et al.[<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref194">115</reflink>] compared undergraduate and graduate student perceptions of active learning in STEM courses and found both groups desired more time for active learning and wanted less lecturing than they were currently experiencing. The study found that undergraduate students were more satisfied with the active learning techniques than graduate student, which they attributed to the undergraduate students having taken fewer and less challenging courses in their academic career.[<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref195">115</reflink>] This current study, and that of Gonsar et al.[<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref196">115</reflink>], suggest that students with less educational experience are more amenable to active learning, possibly because these students are less likely to possess engrained study habits/preferences than students that have completed more coursework associated with an additional degree.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-30">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>Several limitations of the study should be mentioned. First, the survey responses completed by students may have been biased, although it was clearly explained to students that their data would be de‐identified and would not impact their grades. Second, since this was an online course, technology aversion may have disadvantaged certain students throughout the duration of the active learning techniques as the techniques required some knowledge of PowerPoint and Canvas's discussion board. Third, the results may not be generalizable to all courses and institutions as this study was completed at a single university and using anatomy‐specific course content. Fourth, the student population lacked ethnic diversity (79% majority White and Asian). Finally, because most students were White and Asian, the students that belonged to a historically disadvantaged group that summated less than 5 students in total, had to be placed in the "other category" as they would have been identifiable.</p> <p>The authors of the current study are already investigating the impact that the four different active learning techniques have on student academic performance. This ongoing research may provide valuable insights into which active learning methods are the most educationally effective in an online learning environment. Furthermore, as previous research by Theobald et al.[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref197">22</reflink>] has found that active learning narrowed the achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate STEM courses, the present authors are investigating whether demographics and previous course experience have an interactive influence on student performance in conjunction with certain active learning techniques. Additionally, the present authors are investigating whether there is a correlation between satisfaction of the active learning techniques and academic performance.</p> <p>As higher education continues to transition to an online learning environment, further research must be conducted to better understand how diverse groups of students learn and what are the best, most effective online teaching methods. Furthermore, research must be conducted into additional active learning techniques, the satisfaction of those techniques and the resulting academic performance.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-31">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>As online learning increases in prevalence in higher education, educators must adapt their teaching to best fit an online learning environment, including implementing methods that allow students to actively engage in their learning. Numerous benefits of active learning have been well‐established among in‐person anatomy courses. Overall, the results from this study show that students were generally satisfied with active learning and demonstrated a marked preference for some methods (i.e., jigsaw and question constructing) compared to others (i.e., to concept mapping and team‐learning module). Additionally, students who were from historically excluded population groups were more satisfied with active learning, than their White peer counterparts, suggesting that active learning may disproportionately benefit historically excluded students, potentially helping to further narrow the achievement gap. Furthermore, students with a higher GPA, those who did not have an additional degree, and those who had not previously enrolled in an online course were more satisfied with active learning. This study provides valuable evidence regarding student satisfaction of different active learning techniques, disproportionately greater satisfaction among students belonging to historically excluded groups, students without an additional degree and without previous online course experience, as well as those with a higher GPA.</p> <hd id="AN0171369478-32">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no competing interests. All authors have read and accepted this manuscript draft. The authors thank the Medical Science master's program at the University of North Texas Health Science Center for allowing this study to be conducted. Additionally, the authors sincerely thank the students within the Structural Anatomy course for participating in the research study and for giving their honest feedback. Finally, the authors gratefully thank the American Association for Anatomy for funding this research project through the American Association for Anatomy Education Research Scholarship.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1</p> <ref id="AN0171369478-33"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen EI, Seaman J. Growing by degrees: online education in the United States, 2005. Needham, MA : The Sloan Consortium ; 2005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ginder SA, Kelly‐Reid JE, Mann FB. Enrollment and employees in postsecondary institutions, fall 2017; and financial statistics and academic libraries, fiscal year 2017. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education; 2019 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Liu ZY, Lomovtseva N, Korobeynikova E. Online learning platforms: reconstructing modern higher education. Int J Tech. 2020 ; 15 : 4 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Mayer R. Thirty years of research on online learning. App Cognit Psych. 2018 ; 33 : 152 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Seaman JE, Allen EI, Seaman J. Grade increase: tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Park, MA : Babson Survey Research Group ; 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. Number and percentage of graduate students or online classes and degree programs, by selected characteristics: selected years, 2003‐04 through 2015‐16. Table 311.32. 2017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Allen EI, Seaman J, Poulin R, Straut TT. Online report card: tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA : Babson Survey Res Group and Quahog Res Group, LLC ; 2016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Diaz CM, Linden K, Solyali V. Novel and innovative approaches to teaching human anatomy classes in an online environment during a pandemic. Med Sci Educ. 2021 ; 31 : 1703 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Haque AE, Haque M, Than M, Khassan L, Ischak A, Azmi A, et al. Perception on the use of plastinated specimen in anatomy learning among preclinical medical students of UNIKL RCMP, Malaysia. J Glob Pharm Tech. 2017 ; 9 : 25 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hildebrandt S. Lessons to be learned from the history of anatomical teaching in the United States: the example of the University of Michigan. Anat Sci Educ. 2010 ; 3 : 202 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Eng. 2007 ; 89 : 104 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active learning creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC : ASHE‐ERIC Higher Education Report ; 1991.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCoy L, Pettit RK, Kellar C, Morgan C. Tracking active learning in the medical school curriculum: a learning‐centered approach. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2018 ; 5 : 1 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Engr Ed. 2004 ; 93 : 223 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Entezari M, Javdan M. Active learning and flipped classroom, hand in hand approach to improve students in human anatomy and physiology. Int J High Educ. 2016 ; 5 : 222 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleagle TR, Borcherding NC, Harris J, Hoffmann DS. Application of flipped classroom pedagogy to the human gross anatomy laboratory: student preferences and learning outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2018 ; 11 : 385 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross MM, Wright MC, Anderson OS. Effects of image‐based and text‐based active learning exercises on student examination performance in a musculoskeletal anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2017 ; 10 : 444 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huggett KN, White MD, Knoop FC, Eno CA, Cullen DM. Team‐based learning in anatomy lab: promoting active learning and professionalism. Med Sci Educ. 2016 ; 26 : 5 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huitt TW, Killins A, Brooks WS. Team‐based learning in the gross anatomy laboratory improves academic performance and students' attitudes towards teamwork. Anat Sci Educ. 2015 ; 8 : 95 – 103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 ; 111 : 8410 – 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lett E, Murdock H, Orji W, Aysola J, Sebro R. Trends in racial/ethnic representation among US medical students. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 ; 2 : e1910490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Psych Cogn Sci. 2020 ; 117 : 6476 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dumford AD, Miller AL. Online learning in higher education: exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. J Comput High Educ. 2018 ; 30 : 452 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kentor H. Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States. Curr Teach Dialogue. 2015 ; 17 : 21 – 34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means B, Toyama Y, Murphy R, Bakia M, Jones K. Evaluation of evidence‐based practices in online learning: a meta‐analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education ; 2010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palvia S, Aeron P, Gupta P, Mahapatra D, Parida R, Rosner R, et al. Online education: worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. J Global Info Tech Manag. 2018 ; 21 : 233 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh V, Thurman A. How many ways can we define online learning? A systemic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988‐2018). Am J Dist Educ. 2019 ; 4 : 289 – 306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang C, Shannon DM, Ross ME. Students' characteristics, self‐regulated learning, technology self‐efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Dist Educ. 2013 ; 34 : 302 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pickering JD, Swinnerton BJ. An anatomy massive open online course as a continuing professional development tool for healthcare professionals. Med Sci Educ. 2017 ; 27 : 243 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rickard W, Flores JG. The efficacy (and inevitability) of online learning in higher education. Boston, MA : Pearson Learning Solutions ; 2010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> You JW, Kang M. The role of academic emotions in the relationships between perceived academic control and self‐regulated learning in online learning. Comp Educ. 2014 ; 77 : 125 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert B. Online learning revealing the benefits and challenges. 2015. Education Masters. Paper 303.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanson M. Cost of online education vs. traditional education. Educ Data Init. 2021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ. 2004 ; 38 : 418 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehman FU, Khan SN, Yunus M. Students, perceptions of computer assisted teaching and learning of anatomy in a scenario where cadavers are lacking. Biomed Res. 2012 ; 23 : 215 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuyatt BL, Baker JD. Human anatomy software use in traditional and online anatomy laboratory classes: student‐perceived learning benefits. J College Sci Teach. 2014 ; 43 : 14 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortadeveci A, Ermez MN, Oz S, Ozden H. A survey study on distance anatomy education: challenges unique to anatomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2022 ; 44 : 41 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barry DS, Marzouk F, Chulak‐Oglu K, Bennett D, Tierney P, O'Keeffe GW. Anatomy education for the YouTube generation. Anat Sci Educ. 2015 ; 9 : 90 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruffalo Noel Levitz. 2018 national student satisfaction and priorities report. Cedar Rapids, IA : Ruffalo Noel Levitz ; 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan A, Egbue O, Palkie B, Madden J. Active learning: engaging students to maximize in an online course. Elect J E‐Learn. 2017 ; 2 : 107 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathiowetz V, Yu CH, Quake‐Rapp C. Comparison of a gross anatomy laboratory to online anatomy software for teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2015 ; 9 : 52 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rovai AP, Wighting MJ, Liu J. SCHOOL CLIMATE: sense of classroom and school communities in online and on‐campus higher education courses. Q Rev Distance Educ. 2005 ; 6 : 361 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brewer PE, Brewer EC. Pedagogical perspective for the online education skeptics. J Excel Coll Teach. 2015 ; 26 : 29 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole AW, Lennon L, Weber NL. Student perceptions of online active learning practices and online learning climate predict online course engagement. Interact Learn Enviro. 2019 ; 29 : 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner JR, Noser J, Totaro MW. Business faculty and undergraduate students' perceptions for online learning: a comparative study. J Info Syst Educ. 2009 ; 20 : 29 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bucklin BA, Asdigian NL, Hawkins JL, Klein U. Making it stick: use of active learning strategies in continuing medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2021 ; 21 : 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen WK, Wang P. A framework of active learning by concept mapping. US‐China Educ Rev. 2012 ; 11 : 946 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costouros T. Jigsaw cooperative learning versus traditional lectures: impact on student grades and learning experience. Teach Learn Inquiry. 2020 ; 8 : 154 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fendos J. Anatomy terminology performance is improved by combining jigsaws, retrieval practice, and cumulative quizzing. Anat Sci Educ. 2021 ; 14 : 641 – 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haley CM, Brown B, Koerber A, Nicholas CL, Belcher A. Comparing case‐based with team‐based learning: dental students' satisfaction, level of learning, and resources needed. Predoctoral Dent Educ. 2020 ; 84 : 486 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinze‐Fry JA, Novak JD. Concept mapping brings long‐term movement toward meaningful learning. Sci Educ. 1990 ; 74 : 461 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamon S, Knowles O, Hendy A, Story I, Currey J. Active learning to improve student learning experiences in an online postgraduate course. Front Educ. 2020 ; 5 : 1 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim J, Ko H, Park J, Ihm J. Effect of active learning and online discussions on the academic performances of dental students. BMC Med Educ. 2022 ; 22 : 312.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metz CJ, Metz MJ. The benefits and incorporating active learning into online, asynchronous coursework in dental physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2021 ; 46 : 11 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakes DJ, Hegedus EM, Ollerenshaw SL, Drury H, Ritchie HE. Using the jigsaw method to teach abdominal anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2018 ; 12 : 272 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rossi IV, Dinora de Lima J, Sabatke B, Ferreira Nunes MA, Ramirez GE, Ramirez MI. Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, and critical thinking in higher education: experiences in an online course during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2021 ; 49 : 888 – 903.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press ; 1978.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flaherty C. Spaces matter. Washington, DC : Inside Higher Ed ; 2022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ang ET, Chan JM, Shia NL. Gamifying anatomy education. Clin Anat. 2018 ; 31 : 997 – 1005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owens DC, Sadler TD, Barlow AT, Smith‐Walters C. Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Res Sci Educ. 2020 ; 50 : 253 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh K, Bharatha A, Bidyadhar S, Adam OP, Majumder AA. Teaching anatomy using an active and engaging learning strategy. BMC Med Educ. 2019 ; 19 : 149 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lalit M, Piplani S. Active learning methodology—jigsaw technique: an innovative method in learning anatomy. J Anat Soc India. 2019 ; 68 : 147 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Birk L, Corbit A. The effects of sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status on student perceptions of case‐based learning in anatomy and physiology classes. HAPS Educator. 2019 ; 23 : 285 – 95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutte A. Who is repeating anatomy? Trend in an undergraduate anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2015 ; 9 : 171 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vedi N, Dulloo P. Students' perception and learning on case based teaching in anatomy and physiology: an e‐learning approach. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2021 ; 9 : 8 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alcalde P, Nagel J. Why does active learning improve student satisfaction more than student performance? A randomized experiment. Int Rev Econ Educ. 2019 ; 30 : 1 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alqasa K, Afaneh J. Active learning techniques and student satisfaction: role of classroom environment. Eurasian J Educ Res. 2022 ; 98 : 85 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diwan JS, Sanghavi SJ, Shah CJ, Shah AM. Comparison of case‐based learning and traditional lectures in physiology among first year undergraduate medical students. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2017 ; 7 : 744 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyun J, Ediger R, Lee D. Students' satisfaction on their learning process in active learning and traditional classrooms. Int J Teach Learn High Educ. 2017 ; 27 : 108 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Basith A, Rosmaiyadi R, Triani S, Fitri F. Investigation of online learning satisfaction during COVID 19: in relation to academic achievement. J Educ Sci Tech. 2020 ; 6 : 265 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George PD, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, Wang W, Wark PA, Cotic Z, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systemic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014 ; 4 : 1 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> She L, Lan M, Jan A, Nia HS, Rahmatpour P. Online learning satisfaction during COVID‐19 pandemic among Chinese university students: the serial mediation model. Front Psychol. 2021 ; 12 : 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yen S, Lo Y, Lee A, Enriquez J. Learning online, offline and in‐between: comparing student academic outcomes and course satisfaction in face‐to‐face, online and blended teaching modalities. Educ Info Tech. 2018 ; 23 : 1 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Attardi SM, Choi S, Barnett J, Rogers KA. Mixed methods student evaluation of an online systemic human anatomy course with laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2015 ; 9 : 272 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dinh LP, Nguyen TT. Pandemic, social distancing, and social work education: students' satisfaction with online education in Vietnam. Social Work Educ. 2020 ; 39 : 1074 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrat‐Reed D, Roberts LD, Heritage B. Grades, student satisfaction and retention in online face‐to‐face introductory psychology units: a test of equivalency theory. Front Psych. 2016 ; 7 : 1 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul J, Jefferson F. A comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. face‐to‐face environment science course from 2009‐2016. Front Comp Sci. 2019 ; 1 : 1 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ke F, Kwak D. Online learning across ethnicity and age: a study on learning interactions participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Comp Educ. 2013 ; 61 : 43 – 50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Adams J, DeFleur M. The acceptability of a doctoral degree earned online as a credential for obtaining a faculty position. Am J Dist Educ. 2004 ; 19 : 71 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anakwe U, Kessler R, Christensen E. Distance learning and cultural diversity: potential users' perspective. Int J Organ Anal. 1999 ; 7 : 224 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Angiello R. Enrollment and success of Hispanic students in online courses. Lanham, MA : ERIC ; 2002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith D, Ayers D. Culturally responsive pedagogy and online learning: implications for the globalized community college. Comm Col J Res and Pract. 2006 ; 30 : 401 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jin S, Peng L. Classroom perception in higher education: the impact of spatial factors on student satisfaction in lecture verses active learning classrooms. Front Psychol. 2022 ; 13 : 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerfoot BP. Adaptive spaced education improved learning efficiency: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2010 ; 183 : 678 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vallee A, Blacher J, Cariou A, Sorberts E. Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020 ; 22 : e16504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhaqane MK, Afrah NA. Satisfaction of students and academic performance in Benadir university. J Educ Pract. 2016 ; 7 : 59 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domenech‐Betoret F, Albellan‐Rosello G‐AA, Gomez‐Artiga A. Self‐efficacy, satisfaction, and academic achievement: the mediator role of students' expectancy‐value beliefs. Front Psychol. 2017 ; 8 : 1193.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howell G, Buck J. The adult student and course satisfaction: what matters most? Inn High Educ. 2012 ; 34 : 215 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roseth CJ, Lee YK, Saltarelli WA. Reconsidering jigsaw social psychology: longitudinal effects on social interdependence, sociocognitive conflict regulation, motivation, and achievement. J Educ Psych. 2019 ; 111 : 149 – 69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burgess A, Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Facilitating small group learning in the health professions. BMC Med Educ. 2020 ; 3 : 457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michaelsen L, Sweet M, Parmalee D. Team‐based learning: small group learning's next big step. New directions in teaching and learning ; 2009. Hoboken, NJ : Wiley ; p. 7 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Killins AM. Team‐based learning in a physical therapy gross anatomy course. Ann Arbor, MI : ProQuest LLC ; 2015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parmelee D, Destephen D, Borges N. Medical students' attitudes about team‐based learning in a pre‐clinical curriculum. Med Educ Online. 2009 ; 14 : 1 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vasan NS, Defouw DO, Compton S. Team‐based learning in anatomy: an efficient, effective, and economical strategy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011 ; 4 : 333 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill L. Concept mapping to encourage meaningful student learning. SAGE J. 2005 ; 16 : 7 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simone CD. Applications of concept mapping. Col Teach. 2010 ; 55 : 33 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Machado C, Carvalho AA. Concept mapping: benefits and challenges in higher education. J Cont High Educ. 2020 ; 68 : 1 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tatachar A, Li F, Gibson C, Kominski C. Pharmacy students' perception of learning and satisfaction with various active learning exercises. Curr Pharm Tech Learn. 2016 ; 4 : 577 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forehand M. Bloom's taxonomy: original and revised. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology ; Mountain View, CA : Creative Commons. 2005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dinno A. Nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons in independent groups using Dunn's test. SAGE J. 2015 ; 15 : 292 – 300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psych. 2006 ; 3 : 77 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zingone M, Franks A, Guirguis A, George C, Howard‐Thompson A, Heidel R. Comparing team‐based and mixed active‐learning methods in an ambulatory care elective course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010 ; 74 : 160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker R, Spangler E, Lloyd P, Walker B, Peter M, Weesels A. Comparing active learning techniques: the effect of clickers and discussion groups on student perceptions and performance. Australas J Educ Technol. 2018 ; 34 : 74 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar V, Gadbury‐Amyot C. A case‐based and team‐based learning model in oral and maxillofacial radiology. J Dent Educ. 2012 ; 76 : 330 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sari IP, Susiani S. The effects of jigsaw, student team achievement divisions (Stad), and think‐pair‐share (Tps) techniques in writing narrative text. J Educ Sci. 2021 ; 5 : 66 – 79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tesfaye S, Berhanu K. Improving students' participation in active learning methods: group discussions, presentations an demonstrations: a case of Madda Walabu university second year tourism management's students of 2014. J Educ Pract. 2015 ; 6 : 29 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenzo M, Crouch C, Mazur E. Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. Am J Phys. 2006 ; 74 : 118 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonds T, Brock B. Relationship between age, experience, and student preferences for types of learning activities in online courses. J Educators Online. 2014 ; 11 : 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ashong C, Commander N. Ethnicity, gender, and perceptions of online learning in higher education. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach. 2012 ; 8 : 98 – 110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Attardi SM, Rogers KM. Design and implementation of an online systemic human anatomy course with laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2014 ; 8 : 53 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Attardi SM, Barbeau ML, Rogers KM. Improving online interactions: lessons from an online anatomy course with a laboratory for undergraduate students. Anat Sci Educ. 2018 ; 11 : 592 – 604.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller KL, Hughes FP. Does a student's academic major influence their perceptions of a human anatomy and physiology course and ultimately their success in the course? HAPS Educ. 2021 ; 25 : 13 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaffer JF, Schriner SE, Loudon C, Dacanay SJ, Usman A, Dang JV, et al. The impact of physiology prerequisites on future anatomy and physiology courses. HAPS Educ. 2018 ; 22 : 199 – 207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hixon E, Barczyk C, Ralston‐Berg P, Buckenmeyer J. The impact of previous online course experience on students' perceptions of quality. Online Learn. 2016 ; 20 : 25 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonsar N, Patrick L, Cotney S. Graduate and undergraduate‐student perceptions of and preference for teaching practices in STEM classrooms. Discipl Interdiscplin Sci Educ Res. 2021 ; 3 : 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman BK, Landry A, Trevino R, Grande D, Judy S. Understanding the leaky pipeline: perceived barriers to pursuing a career in medicine or dentistry among underrepresented‐in‐medicine undergraduate students. Acad Med. 2016 ; 91 : 987 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Libby J. Bradley; Kimberly E. Meyer; Taylor C. Robertson; Marcel Satsky Kerr; Scott D. Maddux; Amber J. Heck; Rustin E. Reeves and Emma K. Handler</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Libby J. Bradley, MS, is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Physiology and Anatomy in the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX. She teaches gross anatomy to first year medical students and Medical Science master's students.</p> <p>Kimberly E. Meyer, PhD, MPAS, PA‐C, DFAAPA, is an Associate Professor in Physician Assistant Studies and Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX. She teaches PA and medical students, along with being the Executive Director for the Division of Academic Innovations.</p> <p>Taylor C. Robertson, MS, is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Physiology and Anatomy in the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX. She teaches gross anatomy to medical students and Medical Science master's students.</p> <p>Marcel Satsky Kerr, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Neurosciences and Assistant Dean in the School of Biomedical Sciences, Fort Worth, TX. She teaches biomedical statistics, epidemiology research methods, analysis of scientific literature, and foundations of psychology.</p> <p>Scott D. Maddux, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Physiology and Anatomy in the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX. He teaches gross anatomy to medical students and Medical Science master's students.</p> <p>Amber J. Heck, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Genetics in the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX. She is involved in curriculum design and development for online, asynchronous biomedical science courses for undergraduate students.</p> <p>Rustin E. Reeves, PhD, is Director of the Center for Anatomical Sciences, and Professor in the Department of Physiology and Anatomy in the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX. He teaches gross anatomy to medical, PA, and Medical Science master's students.</p> <p>Emma K. Handler, PhD, is a Clinical Instructor in the Anatomy and Cell Biology Department at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. She teaches clinical anatomy to medical, physician assistant, and dental students.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref186"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref189"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref190"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref194"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1391161
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Mixed Method Analysis of Student Satisfaction with Active Learning Techniques in an Online Graduate Anatomy Course: Consideration of Demographics and Previous Course Enrollment
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bradley%2C+Libby+J%2E%22">Bradley, Libby J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3126-7758">0000-0002-3126-7758</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meyer%2C+Kimberly+E%2E%22">Meyer, Kimberly E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Robertson%2C+Taylor+C%2E%22">Robertson, Taylor C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kerr%2C+Marcel+Satsky%22">Kerr, Marcel Satsky</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maddux%2C+Scott+D%2E%22">Maddux, Scott D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heck%2C+Amber+J%2E%22">Heck, Amber J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reeves%2C+Rustin+E%2E%22">Reeves, Rustin E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Handler%2C+Emma+K%2E%22">Handler, Emma K.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Anatomical+Sciences+Education%22"><i>Anatomical Sciences Education</i></searchLink>. Sep-Oct 2023 16(5):907-925.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Satisfaction%22">Student Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anatomy%22">Anatomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prior+Learning%22">Prior Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/ase.2276
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1935-9772<br />1935-9780
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Online learning has become an essential part of mainstream higher education. With increasing enrollments in online anatomy courses, a better understanding of effective teaching techniques for the online learning environment is critical. Active learning has previously shown many benefits in face-to-face anatomy courses, including increases in student satisfaction. Currently, no research has measured student satisfaction with active learning techniques implemented in an online graduate anatomy course. This study compares student satisfaction across four different active learning techniques (jigsaw, team-learning module, concept mapping, and question constructing), with consideration of demographics and previous enrollment in anatomy and/or online courses. Survey questions consisted of Likert-style, multiple-choice, ranking, and open-ended questions that asked students to indicate their level of satisfaction with the active learning techniques. One hundred seventy Medical Science master's students completed the online anatomy course and all seven surveys. Results showed that students were significantly more satisfied with question constructing and jigsaw than with concept mapping and team-learning module. Additionally, historically excluded groups (underrepresented racial minorities) were generally more satisfied with active learning than non-minority groups. Age, gender, and previous experience with anatomy did not influence the level of satisfaction. However, students with a higher-grade point average (GPA), those with only a bachelor's degree, and those with no previous online course experience were more satisfied with active learning than students who had a lower GPA, those holding a graduate/professional degree, and those with previous online course experience. Cumulatively, these findings support the beneficial use of active learning in online anatomy courses.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1391161
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1391161
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ase.2276
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 907
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anatomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prior Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical Education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Mixed Method Analysis of Student Satisfaction with Active Learning Techniques in an Online Graduate Anatomy Course: Consideration of Demographics and Previous Course Enrollment
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bradley, Libby J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Meyer, Kimberly E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Robertson, Taylor C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kerr, Marcel Satsky
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maddux, Scott D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Heck, Amber J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Reeves, Rustin E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Handler, Emma K.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1935-9772
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1935-9780
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 16
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Anatomical Sciences Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1