| Literature DB >> 35006291 |
Kemal Emre Özen1, Kübra Erdoğan2, Mehmet Ali Malas2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the students' opinions about the distance anatomy education given in our faculty at the COVID-19 pandemic and present our department's experiences.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Distance Anatomy Education; Distant Anatomy Education, Distance Education, Medical Faculty; Gross Anatomy Education; Medical Education; Online Anatomy Education; Pandemic; Questionnaire; Remote teaching; Survey
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35006291 PMCID: PMC8743348 DOI: 10.1007/s00276-021-02867-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Radiol Anat ISSN: 0930-1038 Impact factor: 1.246
Questionnaire form applied to evaluate the distance anatomy education and medical faculty student opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic (English translation of the questionnaire form)
| Section-l (S1)* (general information) | Q1. Age |
| Q2. Gender | |
| Q3. Semester (First year, Second year) | |
| Q4. What do you think about the importance of anatomy courses in undergraduate education? | |
| Q5. Have you ever had an experience of distance education before the COVID-19 pandemic? | |
| Section-2 (S2)* (statements) | St1. Conducting theoretical anatomy lessons with video recordings (asynchronous) was more beneficial than face-to-face training |
| St2. Conducting theoretical anatomy lessons via online live class (synchronous) may be more beneficial than video recordings (asynchronous) | |
| St3. Conducting theoretical anatomy lessons with video recordings (asynchronous) has been beneficial for my time management | |
| St4. I had to more use of the anatomy resources (two or three dimensional) available on the web | |
| St5. I had the opportunity to spend more time with anatomy textbooks | |
| St6. According to my impression, theoretical anatomy lessons can be carried out via video recordings (asynchronous) during the formal education period | |
| St7. According to my impression, the number of face-to-face anatomy lessons can be reduced by giving some of the theoretical lessons via video recordings (asynchronous) in anatomy education | |
| St8. My opportunity to interact with the faculty member decreased during the distance education process | |
| St9. According to my impression, three-dimensional digital resources can replace laboratory practice (model/cadaver) training | |
| St10. The fact that the anatomy practice/laboratory courses were not carried out with the theoretical courses disrupted my education | |
| St11. It was the right decision to include anatomy practice courses within the scope of distance education | |
| St12. It was the right decision to include the anatomy theory exam within the online distance education/exam scope | |
| St13. It was the right decision to include the anatomy practice exam within the distance education/exam scope | |
| St14. There has been no loss in terms of quality of anatomy education with the delivery of theoretical anatomy courses via distance education | |
| St15. There has been no loss in terms of quality of anatomy education with the delivery of practical anatomy courses via distance education | |
| Section-3 (S3)* (assessments) | Q1. What are your observations (deficiencies, suggestions, or ideas) about the distance anatomy education activities in this process? |
| Q2. What are your suggestions or opinions ideas for anatomy education methods after the COVID-19 pandemic? |
*S section, Q question, St statement
Demographic parameters of the students (participants) according to their genders [Count (Row N %)]
| Gender | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Male | Female | Total |
| First-year students | 78 (43.80) | 100 (56.20) | 178 (100) |
| Second-year students | 86 (48.60) | 91 (51.40) | 177 (100) |
| Total | 164 (46.20) | 191 (53.80) | 355 (100) |
Distribution of answers given to the question “What do you think about the importance of anatomy course in undergraduate education? (S1–Q4)” [Count (Row N %)]
| Year | Not at all important | Slightly important | Important | Fairly important | Very important | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First-year students | 0 (0) | 3 (1.69) | 9 (5.06) | 52 (29.21) | 114 (64.04) | 178 (100) |
| Second-year students | 1 (0.56) | 0 (0) | 6 (3.39) | 43 (24.29) | 127 (71.75) | 177 (100) |
| Total | 1 (0.28) | 3 (0.85) | 15 (4.23) | 95 (26.76) | 241 (67.89) | 355 (100) |
Distribution of the answers given to the propositions (St1–St15) in the second part of the questionnaire (S2) [n (%)]*
| S2-Statements | Strongly disagree (%) | Disagree (%) | Neither agree nor disagree (%) | Agree (%) | Strongly agree (%) | Total (%) | p** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S2–St1 | 118 (33) | 75 (21) | 59 (17) | 51 (14) | 52 (15) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St2 | 70 (20) | 85 (24) | 63 (18) | 54 (15) | 83 (23) | 355 (100) | 0.043 |
| S2–St3 | 26 (7) | 30 (8) | 48 (14) | 105 (30) | 146 (41) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St4 | 32 (9) | 53 (15) | 83 (23) | 110 (31) | 77 (22) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St5 | 31 (9) | 40 (11) | 80 (23) | 107 (30) | 97 (27) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St6 | 118 (33) | 58 (16) | 43 (12) | 59 (17) | 77 (22) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St7 | 49 (14) | 36 (10) | 54 (15) | 82 (23) | 134 (38) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St8 | 23 (6) | 25 (7) | 56 (16) | 76 (21) | 175 (49) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St9 | 245 (69) | 48 (14) | 23 (6) | 20 (6) | 19 (5) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St10 | 23 (6) | 30 (8) | 45 (13) | 78 (22) | 179 (50) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St11 | 179 (50) | 64 (18) | 49 (14) | 33 (9) | 30 (8) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St12 | 53 (15) | 30 (8) | 59 (17) | 75 (21) | 138 (39) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St13 | 144 (41) | 58 (16) | 49 (14) | 38 (11) | 66 (19) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
| S2–St14 | 88 (25) | 66 (19) | 52 (15) | 66 (19) | 83 (23) | 355 (100) | 0.018 |
| S2–St15 | 219 (62) | 66 (19) | 35 (10) | 16 (5) | 19 (5) | 355 (100) | 0.000 |
*S section, St statement
**Categorical data were evaluated independently, and the Chi-square analysis method supported by Monte Carlo simulation was used
Fig. 1Distribution of the answers given to the statements (St1–St15) in the second section (S2) of the questionnaire (n: 355)
Distribution of the answers to the question “What are your deficiencies, suggestions or ideas about the distance anatomy education activities in this process? (S3–Q1)” according to the themes (Number of comments)
| Theme | Comment Count |
|---|---|
| 1. Satisfaction with the way the theoretical and laboratory lessons are given | 41 |
| 2. The positive effects of sharing theoretical lecture video recordings during the pandemic period, which were already recorded before the pandemic | 5 |
| 3. Satisfaction with the 3D anatomy atlas application, which was accessed in the distance education period | 11 |
| 4. Negative aspects of practical anatomy education, which conducted distance education (anatomy education without cadaver) | 64 |
| 5. Negative aspects of asynchronous theoretical lessons | 22 |
| 6. Request for video recordings of lecture on cadaver and models | 14 |
| Total | 157 |
Distribution of the answers to the question “What are your suggestions and ideas for anatomy education methods after the pandemic process? (S3–Q2)” according to the themes (Number of comments)
| Theme | Comment Count |
|---|---|
| 1. Emphasizing the importance of the face-to-face education | 37 |
| 2. Request for blended model (face-to-face practical sessions and distance theoretical lectures) | 55 |
| 3. Request for increasing usage of three-dimensional educational resources | 4 |
| 4. Request for make-up lessons for laboratories | 25 |
| Total | 121 |