The Impact of an Undergraduate Anatomy Peer‐Led Teaching Program on the Perceptions and Appraisal of the Anatomy Discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anatomy is a foundational prerequisite that is required for a multitude of health‐related careers. However, despite the importance of this subject, anatomy courses are typically offered to students only once or twice during an undergraduate program. To provide undergraduate students with supplementary anatomy‐specific experiences, Anatomy Volunteers (AV) have recently been introduced to the labs at Brock University. An AV is a senior undergraduate anatomy student who has excelled within the course previously and has returned to the program to assist their junior peers. AV assist in peer‐led teaching by delivering didactic talks, facilitating interactive activities, and answering questions about the lab content. For many students, the AV opportunity fosters their first university teaching experience. Working closely with lab instructors provides the opportunity to shape their teaching skills, while perhaps cultivating an interest in anatomy or anatomy‐related professions. Though many students apply for AV with an interest to pursue a profession in healthcare, it is unclear whether their exposure to anatomical education in this fashion may influence their career aspirations, or their perceptions and appraisal of the anatomy discipline. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of peer‐led teaching on the perceptions and appraisal of the anatomy discipline. Participants were recruited from a pool of 117 students who had previously participated in the Brock University AV Program from 2017‐2020. Participants completed an online Reflection Survey using the Qualtrics platform. The survey analysis examined three categories: learning experience, skillset development, and career aspirations. A combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses will be conducted to explore the impact of the AV program on each of these categories, respectively. Quantitative analysis will be used to report descriptive statistics and investigate associations between participant characteristics (i.e., program of study, number of anatomy courses taken, and duration of involvement in the AV program) and their responses to each category. Qualitative analysis will be used to assess open‐ended survey responses, which will be coded for themes by the research team. These research goals are framed around the hypothesis that involvement in the AV program provides participants with exposure and training for prospective anatomical and teaching‐related disciplines. These findings may provide validation for the role of anatomy volunteers beyond the capacity of helping the teaching staff in the lab. They can also improve the quality of teaching in anatomy in the labs while also redefining the process of anatomical training for a new generation of emerging anatomists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".