Anatomy beyond the pandemic: A Q‐methodology study exploring student perceptions toward a hybrid curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, anatomy education was forced to adopt online modes of delivery. Previous research on student views revealed areas of strong preference (asynchronous lectures) and strong dislike (virtual specimens) in online anatomy courses. The current study seeks to compare the views of a single cohort of students experiencing both online and in-person undergraduate introductory anatomy and physiology courses. This comparison can highlight what students consider beneficial to their education and can inform future hybrid course offerings. Q-methodology was used to assess the opinions of students. Students sorted 41 statements on anatomy education in a quasi-normally distributed grid based on their degree of agreement with the statements. The rankings underwent a by-person factor analysis which categorized students with shared perceptions into groups. Data were collected from 246 students in the primarily online fall semester and 191 students in the primarily in-person winter semester. Analysis revealed three distinct factors (groups) in the cohort. Factor one (n = 113 (fall), n = 93 (winter)), was satisfied overall with the course materials and delivery. Factor two (n = 52 (fall), n = 18 (winter)) had a deep dislike of online learning, and factor three (n = 37 (fall), n = 49 (winter)) had a strong preference for online learning. While many students were comfortable in both online and in-person learning environments, this was not the case for all learners. The strengths and weaknesses of each teaching modality suggest the opportunity to explore hybrid learning as an option for future course offerings and specifically highlight valuable aspects to incorporate from each environment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".