View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Who Is Teaching Anatomy? An Examination of the Demographic Characteristics, Academic Backgrounds, and Professional Responsibilities of US Anatomy Teachers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Who Is Teaching Anatomy? An Examination of the Demographic Characteristics, Academic Backgrounds, and Professional Responsibilities of US Anatomy Teachers
Language: English
Authors: Tyler R. Hall (ORCID 0009-0003-5206-3193), Claudia F. Mosley, Joanne B. Vakil, Carson K. Lambert, Dustin M. Savelli, Joy Y. Balta (ORCID 0000-0003-1179-3731)
Source: Anatomical Sciences Education. 2025 18(4):335-346.
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: 12
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Faculty, Anatomy, Science Instruction, Faculty College Relationship, Faculty Development, Faculty Workload, Noninstructional Responsibility, Research, Time Management, Teacher Background, Educational Attainment, Doctoral Degrees, Masters Degrees, Bachelors Degrees, Knowledge Base for Teaching, Teacher Responsibility, Sex, Race
DOI: 10.1002/ase.70005
ISSN: 1935-9772
1935-9780
Abstract: Given the demand for anatomy instruction, it is imperative to understand the current cohort of anatomy teachers. This study aimed to delineate the demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, and professional responsibilities of United States (U.S.) anatomy teachers. A survey was sent to teachers who were identified by their professional membership profiles. Results from 654 responses indicated that 45% of respondents identified as female and 67% identified as white. Most (68%) respondents had an academic doctoral degree. On average, respondents had completed graduate coursework in approximately half of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines. However, approximately 40% of respondents with graduate/professional teaching responsibilities lacked graduate coursework in histology, neuroanatomy, and/or embryology, while approximately 70% of respondents without graduate/professional teaching responsibilities lacked similar coursework. Survey participants reported an assigned time effort of 58% teaching, 16% research, 10% service, and 10% administration and a perceived time effort of 56% teaching, 13% research, 10% service, and 12% administration. Perceived and assigned time efforts were significantly different (p [less than or equal to] 0.04) for administrative, research, and teaching responsibilities. Significant differences (p [less than or equal to] 0.03) also existed amongst participants regarding assigned administrative and teaching time effort and perceived administrative, service, and teaching time effort. Given these findings, we are concerned about protected research time for and the subdiscipline education of anatomy teachers. As such, we provide potential solutions for increasing protected research time and pursuing additional subdiscipline education. We also speculate about the potential impact of the now decades-long anatomy educator shortage on anatomy teacher responsibilities. [The information gathered from this study was shared in part as a poster presentation at the Anatomy Connected conference in Washington, DC, USA in March of 2023 as well as the Anatomy Connected conference in Toronto, OT, CA in March of 2024.]
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1465399
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFtL-7J9d_4aXrGksR4spawAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBdFuFXqQuae841e1QIBEICBmtXKDiFYHyj3zl1SoerS-mz-Hye_KlLfw3-8Axf3Yo-Os48iveMWzMkqMVhe-IX4uPluhhms5YY7g7NOKG6BdkXtdql-ufFXqANeG5TQrdSEQvSGj4I30yyTlBq5A2SCs4VGnR7SAhonkXi83cNmrORxDVr4FmaGvGOg96D-1bvPJSOMgTvOaWxhYrVjv7ZkGUbw9iYcE4qPpSo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184169454;[8z8k]01apr.25;2025Apr03.03:35;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184169454-1">Who is teaching anatomy? An examination of the demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, and professional responsibilities of US anatomy teachers </title> <p>Given the demand for anatomy instruction, it is imperative to understand the current cohort of anatomy teachers. This study aimed to delineate the demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, and professional responsibilities of United States (U.S.) anatomy teachers. A survey was sent to teachers who were identified by their professional membership profiles. Results from 654 responses indicated that 45% of respondents identified as female and 67% identified as white. Most (68%) respondents had an academic doctoral degree. On average, respondents had completed graduate coursework in approximately half of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines. However, approximately 40% of respondents with graduate/professional teaching responsibilities lacked graduate coursework in histology, neuroanatomy, and/or embryology, while approximately 70% of respondents without graduate/professional teaching responsibilities lacked similar coursework. Survey participants reported an assigned time effort of 58% teaching, 16% research, 10% service, and 10% administration and a perceived time effort of 56% teaching, 13% research, 10% service, and 12% administration. Perceived and assigned time efforts were significantly different (p ≤ 0.04) for administrative, research, and teaching responsibilities. Significant differences (p ≤ 0.03) also existed amongst participants regarding assigned administrative and teaching time effort and perceived administrative, service, and teaching time effort. Given these findings, we are concerned about protected research time for and the subdiscipline education of anatomy teachers. As such, we provide potential solutions for increasing protected research time and pursuing additional subdiscipline education. We also speculate about the potential impact of the now decades‐long anatomy educator shortage on anatomy teacher responsibilities.</p> <p>Keywords: anatomical sciences/medical education; anatomy; anatomy education; anatomy instruction; teaching of anatomy</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>The study of anatomy is the backbone of numerous fields in the health sciences. Given the need for anatomy instruction, qualified anatomy teachers are in high demand.[[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]] Previous research[[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]] indicates that anatomy teachers have many responsibilities and work in a variety of settings, instructing different student populations at various levels.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>] However, little to date has been done to describe the responsibilities of United States (U.S.) anatomy teachers. Often, job postings are vague regarding the background and qualifications employers desire in their candidates for anatomy education positions.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>] More information is needed regarding anatomy teachers' academic backgrounds and professional responsibilities to better appreciate the characteristics of the current applicant pool.</p> <p>Traditionally, "anatomy" has included the subdisciplines of gross anatomy, histology, neuroanatomy, and embryology,[[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]] and, at least in recent history, anatomy teachers have often held a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree in anatomy or a related discipline.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>] Although graduate student training is highly variable across programs,[[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]] most U.S. anatomy doctoral students complete coursework in at least three of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines.[[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]] Additionally, previous research has stated that knowledge of these subdisciplines is essential for anatomy teachers[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>] and may represent a baseline level of knowledge.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>] Recent evidence indicates that hiring departments favor applicants who can teach in more than one traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline.[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>] However, the number of PhDs awarded in anatomy has been in relative decline since the late 1960s,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>] which may partially explain why approximately 35% of graduate/professional level and 60% of undergraduate level anatomy teachers lack coursework in histology, neuroanatomy, and embryology.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>] Given the relative importance of traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline knowledge and the potential scarcity of comparable training amongst current anatomy teachers, it seems that more information regarding anatomy teachers' academic background is necessary.</p> <p>The responsibilities of anatomy teachers have yet to be fully delineated. A recent survey of anatomy‐related departments at U.S. medical schools indicated a median percent time effort of 68% teaching, 15% research, 10% service, and 0% administration for anatomy teachers.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>] Given these estimates, investigators have concerns about the lack of protected research time for U.S. anatomy teachers, especially those on tenure track pathways.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>] While previous work has found that anatomy teachers tend to have responsibilities in education instead of research,[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>] protected time for scholarly work is important for productivity,[[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref21">13</reflink>]] tenure and promotion,[[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>]] and faculty retention.[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>] More information is needed regarding the demands of anatomy teachers, particularly regarding their scholarly activity expectations. Further documenting the professional responsibilities of anatomy teachers may better contextualize the current state of U.S. anatomy education.</p> <p>Given the call to monitor the anatomy education landscape[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>] and the need to characterize and quantify the qualifications of anatomy teachers,[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>] this study aimed to delineate the demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, and professional responsibilities of U.S. anatomy teachers. Previous research[[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]] has described considerable variability surrounding anatomy teachers. As such, this study hypothesized that there would be little consistency regarding anatomy teachers' training and responsibilities. Information from this investigation can be used at the individual level to leverage percent time effort assignments, at the department level to review anatomy teacher responsibilities, and at the professional organization/society level to reflect on the characteristics of the current pool of U.S. anatomy educators.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-3">MATERIALS AND METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184169454-4">Survey design</hd> <p>A quasi‐voluntary electronic survey designed to elicit information regarding the background, training, and responsibilities of U.S. anatomy teachers was developed in Qualtrics<sups>XM</sups> (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Individuals identified by their inclusion on the membership registries of the American Association for Anatomy (AAA), the Human Anatomy and Physiology Society (HAPS), and the American Association of Clinical Anatomists (AACA) were invited to participate. After duplicate names were removed, the survey was sent via email to 1764 individuals. Inclusion criteria for invitation to participate in the study included an accessible membership profile on at least one of the organizational websites, identification as a U.S. anatomy teacher, and an email address. Anatomy teachers were identified by one or more of the following descriptors: instructor, lecturer, preceptor, teacher, faculty, professor emeritus/emerita, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and/or teaching assistant. Individuals who were located outside the U.S., had no available email address, or whose profile was missing one of the descriptors above were not invited to participate. The survey was open for approximately one month, and two emails were sent to remind individuals to complete the survey. A professional society or organization did not sponsor the survey, and no survey incentives were offered.</p> <p>The survey included categorical and sliding analog scale items and the maximum number of items a participant could complete was 23. Items solicited answers to fact‐based questions regarding participants' demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, and professional responsibilities. Sliding analog scale items captured the total number of years of anatomy teaching experience, assigned percent time effort allotments, and perceived percent time effort allotments. Though sliding analog scale items were consistently anchored by a minimum value of zero, the scale's range differed depending on the unit of measure (e.g., number of years spent teaching anatomy versus percent time effort allotments). Data were collected at a single time point, and individual participants were the primary unit of analysis. The complete survey is available in Appendix S1.</p> <p>A pilot survey, which sampled 13 university‐level U.S. anatomy teachers, was conducted to establish content validity evidence. Sixty‐two percent (8 of 13) of the invitees completed the pilot survey, and 75% (6 of 8) of those respondents provided feedback intended to improve the survey. That feedback was incorporated into the final version of the survey. Considerable changes were made to the survey, including adding items regarding the pursuit of an anatomy graduate certificate, removing items regarding penultimate and other previous degrees, and restructuring assigned and perceived time efforts based on pilot participants' feedback. Pilot responses were not included in the final data set.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-5">Ethical approval</hd> <p>The institutional review board at The Ohio State University determined that the current study was exempt from review (protocol # 2022E0638).</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-6">Statistical analyses</hd> <p>Statistical analyses were completed in Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington) and through use of version 28 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, New York). Descriptive statistics were reported as means (± standard deviations), percentages (<emph>n</emph> of <emph>N</emph>), or medians (with interquartile ranges). Additionally, Chi‐squared tests of independence, one‐sample Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests, and independent‐samples Kruskal–Wallis tests were completed. A Chi‐squared test of independence was used to determine whether a relationship existed between professorship status (i.e., emeritae, emeriti, full, associate, and assistant professors versus lecturers, instructors, teaching assistants, and high school teachers) and graduate coursework specific to the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines (gross anatomy, histology, neuroanatomy, and/or embryology). A second Chi‐squared test of independence was used to determine whether a relationship existed between professorship status and teaching in a traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline without having taken graduate coursework specific to that subdiscipline. A third Chi‐squared test of independence was used to determine whether a relationship existed between teaching in a traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline without having completed graduate coursework specific to that subdiscipline and the level of students taught (e.g., undergraduate versus graduate/professional). For all Chi‐squared tests of independence, all cells had expected counts of five or more, and phi (<emph>ϕ</emph>) was calculated as a measure of effect size. Values for <emph>ϕ</emph> vary from 0 to 1, with values over 0.15 indicating strong effects.[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref29">20</reflink>] One‐sample Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests were used to compare median delta (Δ) values from assigned and perceived percent time effort for professors (full, associate, and assistant) to zero, and <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> was calculated as a measure of effect size. Finally, independent‐samples Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to determine whether differences existed amongst full, associate, and assistant professors in terms of assigned and perceived percent time efforts. Post hoc analyses employed Dunn's test with an applied Bonferroni correction, and epsilon‐squared (<emph>ε</emph><sups>2</sups>) was calculated as a measure of effect size. Values for <emph>ε</emph><sups>2</sups> range from 0 (indicating no relationship) to 1 (indicating a perfect relationship)[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>] and can be interpreted similar to <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups>.[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>] Nonparametric (i.e., Wilcoxon signed‐rank and Kruskal–Wallis) tests were used after visual inspection of histograms and evaluation of skewness and kurtosis values determined the relevant distributions to be non‐normal. Arcsine transformations were applied to all percentages before completing subsequent analyses, and a significance level of <emph>p</emph> < 0.05 was established a priori.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-7">RESULTS</hd> <p>A total of 667 individuals completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 38% (667 of 1764). Three individuals indicated that the location of their primary appointment was outside the U.S. or its corresponding territories and were subsequently removed from all analyses. An additional nine respondents were removed for not teaching a cohort of students or for having no allotted time for teaching. One respondent was removed for being unemployed, leaving a final pool of 654 responses. Eighty‐four percent (548 of 654) of responses were complete. All data included in the final dataset was analyzed (i.e., data was not excluded listwise), as removing cases could have introduced bias into the analyses.[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-8">Demographic characteristics</hd> <p>Demographic characteristics are available in Table 1. In addition to Washington, DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico, respondents held primary appointments in 45 states, with California (7%; 49 of 654) being the most represented state. On average, respondents had been teaching anatomy for 18 (min = 1, max = 60, <emph>SD</emph> = 13) years.</p> <p>1 TABLE Respondent demographic and professional characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th>Category</th><th align="left">% (<italic>n</italic> of <italic>N</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="char">Gender</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td align="char" char="(">45 (295 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td align="char" char="(">37 (240 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Non‐binary</td><td align="char" char="("><1 (1 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>No answer provided</td><td align="char" char="(">17 (108 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Race, ethnicity, and/or country of origin</td></tr><tr><td>Alaska native of native American</td><td align="char" char="("><1 (1 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Asian or Asia American</td><td align="char" char="(">4 (29 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Black or African American</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (17 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish Origin</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (17 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Middle Eastern or North African</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (7 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>White, European, or European American</td><td align="char" char="(">67 (440 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Some other race, ethnicity, or country of origin</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (5 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (10 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>No answer provided</td><td align="char" char="(">19 (128 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Employment status</td></tr><tr><td>Full‐time</td><td align="char" char="(">74 (481 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Part‐time</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (37 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (41 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>No answer provided</td><td align="char" char="(">14 (95 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Primary appointment</td></tr><tr><td>Professor emerita/emeritus</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (42 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td align="char" char="(">18 (121 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td align="char" char="(">20 (128 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Assistant professor</td><td align="char" char="(">26 (169 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Lecturer</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (22 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Instructor</td><td align="char" char="(">7 (43 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching assistant</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (10 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>High school teacher</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (10 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Other<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char="(">2 (15 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>No answer provided</td><td align="char" char="(">14 (94 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Level of students taught<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td>Graduate/Professional</td><td align="char" char="(">68 (446 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Undergraduate</td><td align="char" char="(">39 (254 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Community college</td><td align="char" char="(">15 (97 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>High school</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (39 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Other<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char="(">3 (20 of 654)</td></tr><tr><td>Type of graduate/professional students taught<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td>Anatomy</td><td align="char" char="(">38 (163 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Chiropractic</td><td align="char" char="(">3 (13 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Dental</td><td align="char" char="(">24 (105 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Medical (DO)</td><td align="char" char="(">22 (96 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Medical (MD)</td><td align="char" char="(">63 (272 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Nursing</td><td align="char" char="(">14 (62 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Occupational therapy</td><td align="char" char="(">18 (79 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Non‐science programs</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (24 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Other science programs</td><td align="char" char="(">26 (112 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Physical therapy</td><td align="char" char="(">43 (183 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Physician assistant</td><td align="char" char="(">37 (158 of 430)</td></tr><tr><td>Other<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char="(">9 (38 of 430)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Examples include adjunct faculty, community college faculty, and faculty specialist.</p> <ulist> <item>2 b Respondents were counted in more than one category.</item> <item>3 c Examples include certificate programs, continuing education groups, and medical residents.</item> <item>4 d Examples include veterinary students, podiatry students, and medical residents.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184169454-9">Academic backgrounds</hd> <p>Sixty‐eight percent (445 of 654) of respondents held an academic doctoral degree, with 45% (200 of 445) of those respondents holding a PhD (or equivalent) in anatomy. Additionally, 15% (98 of 654) of respondents held a professional degree (e.g., MD, DPT, DC, DVM, DPM), of which an MD was the most common (33%; 32 of 98). The majority of respondents (80%; 521 of 654) completed their highest degree in North America. Furthermore, 8% (51 of 654) of respondents completed a graduate certificate program specific to improving their ability to teach anatomy, and most (80%; 41 of 51) completed their graduate certificate training in North America. More than half of respondents (54%; 356 of 654) completed training specific to teaching, with 63% (225 of 356) of those responses indicating their teaching‐related training was dedicated to anatomy. Only 32% (71 of 225) of individuals were exposed to human body donor dissection during their anatomy teaching training. Finally, 60% (394 of 654) of respondents indicated that they worked with a teaching specific mentor at some point during their preparations.</p> <p>Forty‐eight percent (274 of 563) of respondents indicated that they had completed graduate coursework specific to anatomy and physiology and 23% (132 of 563) of respondents had completed graduate coursework specific to radiological imaging. Figure 1 displays the breakdown of respondents who took graduate coursework specific to each of the traditional anatomical sciences (gross anatomy, histology, neuroanatomy, and embryology) subdisciplines. On average, respondents completed graduate coursework in 2.3 (±1.6) of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines. Only 32% (210 of 654) of respondents completed graduate coursework in all four traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines. Results of a Chi‐squared test of independence indicated that no significant association existed between professorship status (i.e., emeritae, emeriti, full, associate, and assistant professors versus lecturers, instructors, teaching assistants, and high school teachers) and graduate coursework in all the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>, _I_n_i_ = 559) = 0.21, <emph>p</emph> = 0.65, <emph>ϕ</emph> = 0.02). However, 19% (121 of 654) of respondents had not completed graduate coursework in any of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines, and a Chi‐squared test of independence indicated that there was a significant association (with a strong effect) between professorship status and no graduate coursework in the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>, _I_n_i_ = 564) = 15.12, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>ϕ</emph> = 0.16). Only 18% (82 of 460) of professors (emeritae, emeriti, full, associate, and assistant) lacked graduate coursework in the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines compared to 35% (35 of 99) of non‐professors.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01apr25/ase70005-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase70005-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Percent of respondents who've taken graduate coursework in each of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines. Respondents were included in more than one category." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184169454-11">Professional responsibilities</hd> <p>Table 1 provides information related to respondents' professional responsibilities. Fifty‐one percent (331 of 654) of respondents catered to students at one level (e.g., undergraduate or graduate/professional students), though most (75%; 321 of 430) teachers at the graduate/professional level taught multiple student populations. Additionally, 31% (204 of 654) of respondents reported holding a leadership position (e.g., dean, division chief, department chair, academic unit director, and more).</p> <p>The mean number of total disciplines taught amongst respondents was 2.7 (±1.5). Forty‐one percent (223 of 546) of respondents reported teaching anatomy and physiology while 29% (160 of 546) respondents reported teaching radiological imaging. Of those respondents who taught at least one of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines (gross anatomy, histology, neuroanatomy, and/or embryology), the mean number of traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines taught was 2.3 (±1.0). On average, then, respondents who taught at least one traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline tended to teach multiple traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines as well as one additional discipline (e.g., anatomy and physiology, radiological imaging, kinesiology, pathology, biomechanics, and physiology). For instance, one respondent reported teaching in four total disciplines, three of which were traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines (gross anatomy, histology, and neuroanatomy) and the other discipline was cell biology.</p> <p>Of those respondents who taught at least one traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline (gross anatomy, histology, neuroanatomy, and/or embryology), 33% (151 of 460) did so without having taken graduate coursework specific to that traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline. In total, there were 246 instances of respondents teaching in a traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline without having completed comparable graduate coursework. The most common traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline taught without comparable graduate training was gross anatomy (31%; 77 of 246), followed by histology (27%; 65 of 246), embryology (21%; 52 of 246), and neuroanatomy (21%; 51 of 246). While results of Chi‐squared tests of independence indicated that there was not a significant association between professorship status and traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline taught without previous graduate coursework (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>, _I_n_i_ = 455) = 0.20, <emph>p</emph> = 0.65, <emph>ϕ</emph> = 0.02), there was a significant association between level taught (graduate/professional vs. not) and traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline taught without previous graduate coursework (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>, _I_n_i_ = 459) = 27.83, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>ϕ</emph> = 0.25). Sixty‐seven percent (32 of 48) of respondents who taught at least one traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline below the graduate/professional level did so without comparable graduate coursework compared to 29% (119 of 412) of respondents who taught at the graduate/professional level.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-12">Assigned effort versus perceived effort</hd> <p>Table 2 displays self‐reported assigned and perceived percent time efforts for professors (i.e., full, associate, and assistant) and significance values associated with one‐sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Figure 2 displays median values of assigned and perceived administration, research, service, and teaching percent time effort for full, associate, and assistant professors as well as results of significant post‐hoc analyses. On average, assistant professors had less assigned and perceived administration percent time effort than both associate and full professors but more assigned and perceived teaching time. Additionally, associate professors had more perceived service percent time effort than both assistant and full professors. In total, professors allocated their time efforts differently than what had been assigned to them.</p> <p>2 TABLE Mean (standard deviation), median (interquartile range), minimum, and maximum values of self‐reported assigned and perceived percent time effort for professors (full, associate, and assistant).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">% Time effort category</th><th align="left">Assigned % time effort</th><th align="left">Perceived % time effort</th><th align="left">Difference</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>Mdn</italic> (<italic>IQR</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>Min</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Max</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>Mdn</italic> (<italic>IQR</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>Min</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Max</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Administration</td><td align="char" char="(">10 (17)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (13)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">95</td><td align="char" char="(">12 (18)</td><td align="char" char="(">4 (19)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">95</td><td align="char" char="."><0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Research</td><td align="char" char="(">16 (17)</td><td align="char" char="(">10 (20)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">95</td><td align="char" char="(">13 (17)</td><td align="char" char="(">8 (20)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">90</td><td align="char" char="."><0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Service</td><td align="char" char="(">10 (8)</td><td align="char" char="(">10 (11)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">50</td><td align="char" char="(">10 (9)</td><td align="char" char="(">10 (11)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">60</td><td align="char" char=".">0.57</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching</td><td align="char" char="(">58 (23)</td><td align="char" char="(">60 (33)</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char="(">56 (23)</td><td align="char" char="(">60 (35)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Clinical<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="char" char="(">1 (5)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">48</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (4)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">47</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Continuing education<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="char" char="(">1 (3)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">28</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (4)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char="."><0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mentoring<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td align="char" char="(">4 (6)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (10)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">40</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (7)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (10)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">40</td><td align="char" char="."><0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td><td align="char" char="(">0 (3)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">36</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (6)</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0)</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char=".">0.96</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <emph>Note</emph>: Significance values represent results of one‐sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests comparing median delta (Δ) values to zero using arcsine transformed data. Results indicated that significant differences existed between actual and perceived administration (<emph>Z</emph> = −5.37, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.07), research (<emph>Z</emph> = 5.76, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.08), teaching (<emph>Z</emph> = 2.09, <emph>p</emph> < 0.04, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.01), continuing education (<emph>Z</emph> = −2.85, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.02) and mentoring (<emph>Z</emph> = −6.68, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.11) percent time efforts.</item> <item>6 a 7% (27 of 402) of professors reported having an assigned time effort for clinical duties and 6% (24 of 408) reported having a perceived time effort for clinical duties.</item> <item>7 b 11% (43 of 402) of professors reported having an assigned time effort for continuing education and 16% (65 of 408) reported having a perceived time effort for continuing education.</item> <item>8 c 45% (179 of 402) of professors reported having an assigned time effort for mentoring and 61% (249 of 408) reported having a perceived time effort for mentoring.</item> <item>9 d 2% (10 of 402) of professors reported having an assigned time effort for other duties (e.g., curriculum development, lab management) and 2% (8 of 408) reported having a perceived time effort for other duties.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01apr25/ase70005-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase70005-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Median values of self‐reported assigned and perceived administration, research, service, and teaching percent time effort for full, associate, and assistant professors. Significant differences existed in assigned administration (H(2) = 24.18, p < 0.01, ε2 = 0.06), service (H(2) = 6.60, p = 0.04, ε2 = 0.02), and teaching (H(2) = 20.18, p < 0.01, ε2 = 0.05) percent time effort. Post hoc analyses indicated significant differences between assistant and associate professor assigned administration (p < 0.01) and teaching (p = 0.03) percent time effort as well as significant differences between assistant and full professor assigned administration (p < 0.01) and teaching (p < 0.01) percent time effort. Post hoc analyses of assigned service percent time effort revealed no significant differences. Significant differences existed in perceived administration (H(2) = 20.14, p < 0.01, ε2 = 0.05), service (H(2) = 9.22, p = 0.01, ε2 = 0.02), and teaching (H(2) = 22.66, p < 0.01, ε2 = 0.06) percent time effort. Post‐hoc analyses indicated significant differences between assistant and associate professor assigned administration (p < 0.01) and teaching (p = 0.02) percent time effort as well significant differences between assistant and full professor assigned administration (p < 0.01) and teaching (p < 0.01) percent time effort. Additionally, significant differences existed between associate and both assistant (p = 0.03) and full professors (p = 0.02) in perceived service percent time effort. Bars indicate value of 75th percentile. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Figure 3 displays the percentage of time effort dedicated to research as assigned to and perceived by professors (i.e., full, associate, and assistant). Of the 54% (215 of 402) of professors with an assigned time effort between 0% and 10%, 18% (39 of 215) had an assigned time effort between 1% and 5%. An additional 49% (105 of 215) had an assigned time effort of 0% dedicated to research. For perceived time effort dedicated to research, 64% (262 of 408) of professors (i.e., full, associate, and assistant) reported a time effort between 0% and 10%. Approximately 35% (91 of 262) of those respondents reported a perceived time effort between 1% and 5% while an additional 41% (107 of 262) reported a perceived time effort of 0% dedicated to research.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/8Z8K/01apr25/ase70005-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ase70005-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Distribution of assigned (top, n = 402) and perceived (bottom, n = 408) percent time effort dedicated to research as reported by full, associate, and assistant professors." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184169454-15">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This study describes the demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, and professional responsibilities of the current cohort of U.S. anatomy teachers. This work expands on previous research[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>] by investigating U.S. anatomy teachers' professional responsibilities and the graduate‐level coursework they completed. These outcomes direct attention to anatomy professors' limited time for scholarly work, spotlight the seemingly decreased emphasis on anatomy subdiscipline education, and highlight potential ramifications of the anatomy educator shortage.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-16">Protected research time for anatomy professors</hd> <p>Results of the current study indicate that U.S. anatomy professors (i.e., full, associate, and assistant) had median assigned time effort values of 60% teaching, 10% research, 10% service, and 0% administration. While the values for service and administration are similar to previously published values,[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>] results of one‐sample Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests indicated that the values for teaching and research are different (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01). A recent survey of 35 anatomy‐related departments at U.S. medical schools detailed estimated percent time effort assignments of anatomy professors, finding median values of allotted percent time effort as 68% teaching, 15% research, 10% service, and 0% administrative duties.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref39">12</reflink>] Although methodological differences exist between the studies, such as sampling anatomy department chairs in U.S. medical schools versus sampling "all" anatomy teachers and the use of department‐level averages versus anatomy teacher self‐reports, both studies highlight the apparent lack of protected research time for anatomy professors. This was true across professorship levels (i.e., full, associate, or assistant) in the current study, as 36% (144 of 402) of professors indicated having an assigned percent effort of 5% or less dedicated to research. Additionally, professors reported that, on average, they spent less time engaging in research activities than allotted, with 49% (198 of 408) of responding professors reporting a perceived time effort of 5% or less dedicated to research. Despite the recognized need[[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref40">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref44">26</reflink>]] for protected research time for clinician‐educators, anatomy teachers, and others involved in medical education, previous research has stated that the limited amount of protected research time is a growing concern.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]</p> <p>Recent research[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>] has suggested that contemporary anatomy professors should allocate 20% of their time for research and 80% of their time for other duties. Unfortunately, it appears that much work may be needed to arrive at this number, as results from this study indicate that the median assigned percent time effort dedicated to research is 10%. Additionally, results from the current study indicate that, in general, anatomy professors may spend less than 10% of their time effort engaged in research responsibilities. While it may be common for anatomy professors to receive inadequate research time[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>] or to spend less than their dedicated time for research,[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>] a percent time effort of 10% is concerning. Although demonstrated scholarly activity is not often required in applications for open anatomy positions,[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref49">11</reflink>] scholarship is an important aspect of the tenure and promotion process[[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref51">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref52">17</reflink>]] and provides the underpinnings of evidence‐based practice.[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>] Limited scholarly support may lead to faculty burnout,[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref54">29</reflink>] attrition,[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>] and/or may put individuals at risk for not attaining promotion to the next rank.[[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref57">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]] Meager support for research may also hinder the development of young faculty members.[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref59">31</reflink>] While it appears that both anatomy professors and anatomy‐related departments could be more intentional in finding protected research time, significant fiscal concerns exist.[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref60">27</reflink>]</p> <p>Similar to suggestions for combatting the anatomy educator shortage,[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref61">11</reflink>] anatomy departments may need to be creative in finding protected time for research. For instance, previous suggestions[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>] for making content‐heavy courses team taught may provide anatomy professors with additional research time. Unfortunately, team teaching was not directly addressed in this study. However, a median percent time effort of 60% in the current study suggests that many anatomy professors spend a substantial amount of time engaged in teaching, so more information about the prevalence, feasibility, and benefits of team‐teaching is warranted. Another option for creating more research time for anatomy faculty members could be implementing additional postdoctoral teaching positions. Previous research suggests that individuals in a postdoctoral teaching position could help lighten the teaching load for anatomy faculty members.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>] Theoretically, this newfound time could be allocated to research, though anecdotal evidence suggests this time may likely be shifted toward mentoring instead. Additionally, an anatomy postdoctoral position may help future anatomy professors establish a robust research program of their own,[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>] though previous research[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>] has stated that the potential teaching load of postdoctoral fellows may prevent them from pursuing independent research. Additionally, significant fiscal concerns exist for both departments[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>] and participants.[[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref67">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref68">32</reflink>]] As has been argued recently,[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>] great care would be needed in developing these postdoctoral positions if all stakeholders are to benefit. Regardless of whether it is more team teaching, more postdoctoral positions, or some combination of the two, it appears that more support for the scholarly work of our teachers may be warranted.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-17">Status of traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline education</hd> <p>Similar to previous research,[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>] the current study found that training in the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines (gross anatomy, histology, neuroanatomy, and embryology) is inconsistent. Although little agreement exists regarding the number of traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines anatomy teachers should master,[[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref73">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref74">36</reflink>]] being able to teach in multiple subdisciplines is important to hiring departments.[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>] With approximately 50% of hiring departments anticipating some difficulty in hiring individuals to teach in the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines,[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref76">11</reflink>] training in these subdisciplines remains relevant. Respondents in the current study indicated that, on average, they had only completed graduate coursework in approximately half of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines, and 19% (121 of 654) of respondents indicated that they had no graduate training in any of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines. The approximately 70% of instructors with teaching responsibilities at the undergraduate level or lower who lacked graduate training in the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines in the current study is slightly higher than a previously reported value (60%) for undergraduate instructors.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>] The 35%–40% of graduate instructors in the current study lacking graduate histology, neuroanatomy, and/or embryology training is consistent with previously reported values of 30%–40%.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref78">4</reflink>] Given that knowledge of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines may represent a baseline level of knowledge,[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>] it may be time to revisit the number of these subdisciplines anatomy teachers should master. Unfortunately, traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline training is inconsistent across anatomy programs,[[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref81">9</reflink>]] and many anatomy‐related programs do not require training in the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>] Regardless, programs training future anatomy teachers would do well to consider the number of traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines they are training their students in.</p> <p>Why coursework in the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines has steadily declined is unclear. Time dedicated to gross anatomy and histology has fallen considerably in the medical arena over the previous two decades,[[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref83">37</reflink>]] and it is possible that the integrated curricula used in medical schools[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref84">37</reflink>] has spilled over into other areas of anatomy education. Additionally, the decreasing number of anatomy doctoral programs[[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>]] could have played a role, or perceived difficulty finding qualified anatomy teachers[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref87">11</reflink>] may have made traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline‐specific coursework expendable. Regardless, further abandonment of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines threatens the identity of anatomy as a discipline and may undermine its importance as a basic science.</p> <p>Fortunately, continuing education may offer additional opportunities for traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline education.[[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref88">4</reflink>]] In the current study, 11% (43 of 402) of responding professors reported having assigned time for continuing education, and 16% (65 of 408) reported spending time completing continuing education. While it is unclear whether there is a difference in the quality of traditional anatomical sciences subdiscipline education between graduate coursework and continuing education, previous research[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>] indicates that approximately 50% of anatomy teachers had participated in anatomy‐related continuing education within the past three years. Additionally, approximately 81% of anatomy teachers surveyed admitted needing anatomy‐related continuing education.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref90">5</reflink>] Although it is unclear what effects the pursuit of continuing education or on‐the‐job training may have, continuing education represents a mechanism to prepare and develop anatomy faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-18">Potential consequences of the anatomy educator shortage</hd> <p>Results from the current study highlight what might occur when a seemingly ever‐present shortage of qualified anatomy teachers[[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref93">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref94">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref95">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref96">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref97">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref98">43</reflink>]] meets a burgeoning demand.[[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref100">3</reflink>]] Although little to date has been done to combat the issue, recent research[[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref102">9</reflink>]] has called for action in the wake of anatomy teacher shortages. These appeals appear warranted, as continually ignoring the disparity between the number of qualified teachers available and the number of qualified teachers needed may result in unanticipated effects. For example, having fewer newly qualified faculty members could result in a more diverse workload for practicing professors. Though the differences between assigned and perceived teaching, research, and administrative duties for professors (i.e., full, associate, and assistant) observed in the current study may appear small, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> values indicated small‐to‐medium sized effects for both research and administrative duties. These differences, combined with differences seen in assigned and perceived continuing education and mentoring responsibilities, seem to indicate that anatomy faculty members are shouldering additional responsibilities. In fact, the <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> value associated with mentoring responsibilities demonstrated a medium sized effect, indicating that there may be a real difference between assigned and perceived mentoring responsibilities. While it may be common for the demands of those working in (and around) anatomy education to be incongruent with their assigned responsibilities,[[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref103">15</reflink>]] it stands to reason that continually asking anatomy faculty members to take on more (and more) responsibilities may have unforeseen consequences. More information is needed regarding the effects of percent time effort allotments on anatomy faculty members' teaching effectiveness, scholarly productivity, satisfaction, and retention.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-19">Limitations</hd> <p>A limitation of the current study is the 38% (667 of 1764) response rate, which is below the recommended response rate of 67% for health sciences research.[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref104">44</reflink>] However, there is no consensus regarding an acceptable minimum response rate,[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref105">45</reflink>] and our 38% response rate is close to a more conservative response rate recommendation of 40%.[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref106">46</reflink>] A second limitation of the current study involves the interpretation of the survey items. While a pilot survey was conducted to establish content validity evidence, it is uncertain whether respondents interpreted the survey items as intended. A third limitation involves anatomy teachers who may have held positions in multiple departments or at multiple institutions. Because our survey only asked about respondents' primary positions, information from respondents with multiple positions may be missing. Additionally, because we didn't ask how much a faculty member participated in a course, information related to team‐teaching and how it affects percent time efforts may also be missing. Another limitation involves survey items regarding tenure‐track faculty members. Because we did not ask about tenure‐track faculty members and/or faculty funding, context surrounding responses pertaining to research (and teaching) percent time efforts may be limited. Finally, the current study was limited by its ability to identify and contact U.S. anatomy teachers. Despite broadly soliciting participation in the survey, some anatomy teachers who are not members of AAA, AACA, and/or HAPS may have been missed.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-20">Future directions</hd> <p>More information is needed to contextualize anatomy teachers' responses, particularly regarding professors' research responsibilities and participation in continuing education. Comparisons of tenured (or tenure‐track) faculty and non‐tenure track faculty, in addition to faculty members with and without research funding, could provide insight into limited protected research time for anatomy professors. Additionally, while the current study inquired about anatomy teachers' continuing education experiences, further details regarding the contents, purposes, and mechanisms of pursuing continuing education remain relevant. For instance, how prevalent is on‐the‐job training (such as participating in a course before teaching it) and is it a tenable method whereby anatomy teachers can gain requisite experience? This information appears warranted, especially amongst respondents teaching in disciplines in which they have not taken graduate coursework.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-21">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>U.S. anatomy teachers have a diverse set of academic backgrounds, serve in various roles with many responsibilities, and teach a range of disciplines to a variety of student populations. Anatomy teachers' assigned time efforts did not always align with their perceived time allocations, often with more time spent on administrative duties than was allotted. The general scarcity of protected research time for anatomy teachers and the deemphasis on anatomy subdiscipline education is particularly concerning. To support anatomy teachers now and in the future, departments should carefully consider different models for assigning anatomy teachers' time efforts and for developing the next generation of educators.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-22">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Tyler R. Hall:</bold> Formal analysis; methodology; project administration; validation; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. <bold>Claudia F. Mosley:</bold> Investigation; methodology; writing – review and editing. <bold>Joanne B. Vakil:</bold> Formal analysis; methodology; writing – review and editing. <bold>Carson K. Lambert:</bold> Data curation; investigation; project administration. <bold>Dustin M. Savelli:</bold> Data curation; methodology; project administration. <bold>Joy Y. Balta:</bold> Conceptualization; investigation; methodology; project administration; supervision; writing – review and editing.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-23">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>The authors wish to thank Dr. James J. Cray Jr., Dr. Christopher R. Pierson, and Dr. Kristin K. Stover for their help throughout the study. The authors also wish to thank the members of the Balta lab for their feedback and support. Finally, the authors wish to thank all the individuals who participated in the pilot study for their help.</p> <hd id="AN0184169454-24">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1.</p> <ref id="AN0184169454-25"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> <emph>Previous Presentations</emph>: The information gathered from this study was shared in part as a poster presentation at the Anatomy Connected conference in Washington, DC, USA in March of 2023 as well as the Anatomy Connected conference in Toronto, OT, CA in March of 2024.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184169454-26"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> McCuskey RS, Carmichael SW, Kirch DG. The importance of anatomy in health professions education and the shortage of qualified educators. Acad Med. 2005 ; 80 (4): 349 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888‐200504000‐00008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Wilson AB, Kaza N, Singpurwalla DJ, Brooks WS. Are anatomy PhDs nearing extinction or adopting to change? United States graduate education trends in the anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2021 ; 14 (4): 432 – 439. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Garnett CN, Brooks WS, Singpurwalla D, Wilson AB. Update on the state of the anatomy educator shortage. Anat Sci Educ. 2023 ; 16 (6): 1118 – 1120. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Schaefer AF, Wilson AB, Barger JB, Azim HM, Brokaw JJ, Brooks WS. What does a modern anatomist look like? Current trends in the training of anatomy educators. Anat Sci Educ. 2019 ; 12 (3): 225 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref89" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Wilson AB, Barger JB, Perez P, Brooks WS. Is the supply of continuing education in the anatomical sciences keeping up with the demand? Results of a national survey. Anat Sci Educ. 2018 ; 11 (3): 225 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1726</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Rizzolo LJ, Drake RL. Anatomists debate the value of a teaching credential. Anat Sci Educ. 2008 ; 1 (2): 60 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bird MM. Scientists teaching gross anatomy [letter]. Med Educ. 1979 ; 13 (3): 237 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2923.1979.tb01449.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Couzin‐Frankel J. Anatomy help wanted: survey predicts shortage of teachers for long‐standing medical school class. Science [Internet]. 2003 Feb 26 [cited 2023 Jan 1]; [about 1 p.]. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.science.org/content/article/anatomy‐help‐wanted">www.science.org/content/article/anatomy‐help‐wanted</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Hall TR, Mosley CF, Balta JY. Graduate anatomy education: how are we training the future generations of anatomy educators? Anat Sci Educ. 2024 ; 17 (2): 422 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2365</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langley NR, Butaric LN. Anatomical sciences education among biological anthropology graduates: a solution to the dearth of anatomy educators? Med Sci Educ. 2020 ; 30 (1): 129 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670‐019‐00809‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson AB, Notebaert AJ, Shaefer AF, Moxham BJ, Stephens S, Mueller C, et al. A look at the anatomy educator job market: anatomists remain in short supply. Anat Sci Educ. 2020 ; 13 (1): 91 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1895</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffith M, Ferrigno C, Wilson AB. Pulling back the curtain: exploring norms and practices among a sample of anatomy‐related departments in U.S. medical schools. Anat Sci Educ. 2023 ; 16 (5): 969 – 978. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnard JA. Protected time: a vital ingredient for research career development. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2015 ; 60 (3): 292 – 293. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000000693</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwan PP, Sharp S, Mason S, Saetermore CL. Faculty writing groups: the impact of protected writing time and group support. Int J Educ Res Open. 2021 ; 2 : 100100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs MB. Faculty status for clinician‐educators: guidelines for evaluation and promotion. Acad Med. 1993 ; 68 (2): 126 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888‐199302000‐00004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheffield JV, Wipf JE, Buchwald D. Work activities of clinician‐educators. J Gen Intern Med. 1998 ; 13 (6): 406 – 409. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525‐1497.1998.00120.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irby DM, O'Sullivan PS. Developing and rewarding teachers as educators and scholars: remarkable progress and dauting challenges. Med Educ. 2018 ; 52 (1): 58 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Virdi AS, Sandi G, Chubinskaya S. Intramural grant program to promote research activity among early‐career faculty members. Acad Med. 2022 ; 97 (9): 1331 – 1334. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004662</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards DN, Meyer ER, Brooks WS, Wilson AB. Faculty retirements will likely exacerbate the anatomy educator shortage. Anat Sci Educ. 2023 ; 16 (4): 618 – 628. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Akoglu H. User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018 ; 18 : 91 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomczak M, Tomczak E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends Sport Sci. 2014 ; 1 (21): 19 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iacobucci D, Popovich DL, Moon S, Román S. How to calculate, use, and report variance explained effect size indices and not die trying. J Consum Psychol. 2023 ; 33 (1): 45 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seaman SR, White IR. Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013 ; 22 (3): 278 – 295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280210395740</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandi G, Chubinskaya S. A faculty development model that promotes success of early career faculty in academic medicine. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2020 ; 40 (1): 69 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vardan S, Smulyan H, Mookherjee S, Mehrotra KG. Factors encouraging productivity in a division of general internal medicine. Acad Med. 1990 ; 65 (12): 772 – 774. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888‐199012000‐00014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barchi RL, Lowery BJ. Scholarship in the medical faculty from the university perspective: retaining academic values. Acad Med. 2000 ; 75 (9): 899 – 905. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888‐200009000‐00011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruppen LD, Durning SJ. Needles and haystacks: finding funding for medical education research. Acad Med. 2016 ; 91 (4): 480 – 484. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000983</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Archer J, McManus C, Woolf K, Monrouxe L, Illing J, Bullock A, et al. Without proper research funding, how can medical education be evidence based? BMJ. 2015 ; 350 : h3445. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Banerjee G, Mitchell JD, Brzezinski M, DePorre A, Ballard HA. Burnout in academic physicians. Perm J. 2023 ; 27 (2): 142 – 149. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/23.032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bucklin BA, Valley M, Welch C, Tran ZV, Lowenstein SR. Predictors of early faculty attrition at one academic medical center. BMC Med Educ. 2014 ; 14 : 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472‐6920‐14‐27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Blumenthal D. Relationship between market competition and the activities of and attitudes of medical school faculty. JAMA. 1997 ; 278 (3): 222 – 226. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550030062035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sainburg T. American postdoctoral salaries do not account for growing disparities in cost of living. Res Policy. 2023 ; 52 : 104714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gangrade N, Lambert WM. Postdoctoral mentorship needs a reform. Trends Mol Med. 2024 ; 30 (1): 6 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2023.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heylings DJ. Anatomy 1999‐2000: the curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Educ. 2002 ; 36 (8): 702 – 710. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365‐2923.2002.01272.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pawlina W, Drake RL. What do electrical outlets and Google maps have in common with core anatomy curricula? Perspectives from anatomists, clinicians, and educationalists [editorial]. Anat Sci Educ. 2014 ; 7 (4): 249 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson‐Hatcher A, MacPherson B, Gould D, Brueckner‐Collins J. Assessing the impact of the graduate certificate in anatomical sciences instruction: a post‐degree survey. Anat Sci Educ. 2018 ; 11 (5): 516 – 526. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1786</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride JM, Drake RL. National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2018 ; 11 (1): 7 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1760</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drake RL, Lowrie DJ Jr, Prewitt CM. Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec. 2002 ; 269 (2): 118 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.10079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eldred E, Eldred B. Supply and demand for faculty in anatomy. J Med Educ. 1961 ; 36 (2): 134 – 147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holden C. Anatomy classes face gross shortage. Science [Internet]. 2003 Feb 28 [cited 2023 Jan 1]; 299 (5611): 1309. Available from: https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3833473">www.jstor.org/stable/3833473</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Memon IK. Anatomy education faces challenges in Pakistan. Anat Sci Educ. 2009 ; 2 (4): 193 – 194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Windsor M. Body issues: More anatomists are needed to close the primary care gap. UAB Reporter [Internet]. 2019 Aug 8 [cited 2023 Jan 1]. Available from: https://bit.ly/3Xyo0ij</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chia T. Anatomy teaching by only medically qualified faculty is infeasible [letter]. Surg Radiol Anat. 2020 ; 42 (7): 857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276‐020‐02454‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson AB, Brooks WS, Edwards DN, Deaver J, Surd JA, Pirlo OJ, et al. Survey response rates in health sciences education research: a 10‐year meta‐analysis. Anat Sci Educ. 2024 ; 17 (1): 11 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2345</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sataloff RT, Vontela S. Response rates in survey research. J Voice. 2021 ; 35 (5): 683 – 684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.12.043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Story DA, Tait AR. Survey research. Anesthesiology. 2019 ; 130 (2): 192 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002436</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tyler R. Hall; Claudia F. Mosley; Joanne B. Vakil; Carson K. Lambert; Dustin M. Savelli and Joy Y. Balta</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Tyler R. Hall, Ph.D. is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Health, Exercise, and Sports Studies at Denison University in Granville, Ohio. He teaches courses related to health, exercise, and anatomy to undergraduate students.</p> <p>Claudia F. Mosley, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Division of Anatomy, Biomedical Education and Anatomy, College of Medicine at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. She teaches anatomy to undergraduate and graduate students and her research focuses on student performance based on modality of instruction as well as creating unique educational tools to assist student learning.</p> <p>Joanne B. Vakil, Ph.D., has been a research specialist at the Office of Curriculum and Scholarship in The Ohio State University's College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio. She is currently an independent researcher and adjunct faculty member at Joyce University of Nursing and Health Sciences.</p> <p>Carson K. Lambert, B.S., is a physician assistant student at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. As a recent graduate of The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio he served as an undergraduate teaching assistant for the Division of Anatomy where he taught and mentored undergraduate students in a laboratory setting.</p> <p>Dustin M. Savelli, B.S., is a graduate student in the Division of Anatomy, Department of Biomedical Education and Anatomy, College of Medicine at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.</p> <p>Joy Y. Balta, M.Sc., M.Ed., Ph.D., is an Associate Professor and Founding Director of the Anatomy Learning Institute, College of Health Sciences, Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, California, and University of California, San Diego. He teaches anatomy to graduate students and other health profession programs and his research focuses on the use of alternative preservation techniques for education and research, along with anatomy education research. He is the Primary Investigator of the Balta Lab.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref106"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1465399
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Who Is Teaching Anatomy? An Examination of the Demographic Characteristics, Academic Backgrounds, and Professional Responsibilities of US Anatomy Teachers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tyler+R%2E+Hall%22">Tyler R. Hall</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5206-3193">0009-0003-5206-3193</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Claudia+F%2E+Mosley%22">Claudia F. Mosley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joanne+B%2E+Vakil%22">Joanne B. Vakil</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carson+K%2E+Lambert%22">Carson K. Lambert</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dustin+M%2E+Savelli%22">Dustin M. Savelli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joy+Y%2E+Balta%22">Joy Y. Balta</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1179-3731">0000-0003-1179-3731</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Anatomical+Sciences+Education%22"><i>Anatomical Sciences Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 18(4):335-346.
– 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: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Speeches/Meeting Papers
– 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="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anatomy%22">Anatomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+College+Relationship%22">Faculty College Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Workload%22">Faculty Workload</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Noninstructional+Responsibility%22">Noninstructional Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research%22">Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Management%22">Time Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Background%22">Teacher Background</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Attainment%22">Educational Attainment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Degrees%22">Doctoral Degrees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Masters+Degrees%22">Masters Degrees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bachelors+Degrees%22">Bachelors Degrees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Base+for+Teaching%22">Knowledge Base for Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Responsibility%22">Teacher Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex%22">Sex</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Race%22">Race</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/ase.70005
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1935-9772<br />1935-9780
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Given the demand for anatomy instruction, it is imperative to understand the current cohort of anatomy teachers. This study aimed to delineate the demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, and professional responsibilities of United States (U.S.) anatomy teachers. A survey was sent to teachers who were identified by their professional membership profiles. Results from 654 responses indicated that 45% of respondents identified as female and 67% identified as white. Most (68%) respondents had an academic doctoral degree. On average, respondents had completed graduate coursework in approximately half of the traditional anatomical sciences subdisciplines. However, approximately 40% of respondents with graduate/professional teaching responsibilities lacked graduate coursework in histology, neuroanatomy, and/or embryology, while approximately 70% of respondents without graduate/professional teaching responsibilities lacked similar coursework. Survey participants reported an assigned time effort of 58% teaching, 16% research, 10% service, and 10% administration and a perceived time effort of 56% teaching, 13% research, 10% service, and 12% administration. Perceived and assigned time efforts were significantly different (p [less than or equal to] 0.04) for administrative, research, and teaching responsibilities. Significant differences (p [less than or equal to] 0.03) also existed amongst participants regarding assigned administrative and teaching time effort and perceived administrative, service, and teaching time effort. Given these findings, we are concerned about protected research time for and the subdiscipline education of anatomy teachers. As such, we provide potential solutions for increasing protected research time and pursuing additional subdiscipline education. We also speculate about the potential impact of the now decades-long anatomy educator shortage on anatomy teacher responsibilities. [The information gathered from this study was shared in part as a poster presentation at the Anatomy Connected conference in Washington, DC, USA in March of 2023 as well as the Anatomy Connected conference in Toronto, OT, CA in March of 2024.]
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1465399
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1465399
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ase.70005
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 335
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anatomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty College Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Workload
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Noninstructional Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Background
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Attainment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Doctoral Degrees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Masters Degrees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bachelors Degrees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Base for Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Race
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Who Is Teaching Anatomy? An Examination of the Demographic Characteristics, Academic Backgrounds, and Professional Responsibilities of US Anatomy Teachers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tyler R. Hall
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Claudia F. Mosley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joanne B. Vakil
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carson K. Lambert
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dustin M. Savelli
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joy Y. Balta
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1935-9772
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1935-9780
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 18
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Anatomical Sciences Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1