Leslie K Sprunger, DVM, PhD Dept of Vet

1
Encouraging collaboration and communication in
the gross anatomy laboratory

• Leslie K Sprunger, DVM, PhDDept of Vet Comp
  Anat, Pharm, Physiology

2
The anatomy lab as a setting for developing
teamwork skills

• Students work in small groups (2-3)
• Distinct roles to be negotiated within group
• Two groups per specimen each day
• Specimen assignments change daily, establishing a
  collective resource

3
The anatomy lab as a setting for developing
communication skills

• Professional but relaxed atmosphere
• Work at their own pace on daily assignments
• Small groups require constant interaction with
  peers faculty

4
The anatomy lab as a setting for developing
communication skills

• Two groups share one specimen
• Section 1 carries out assigned dissection (2.5
  hrs)
• Section 2 studies dissected material completed by
  section 1 (1.5 hrs)
• Transition Review link between section 1 and
  section 2

5
Transition Reviews

• One student from each section 1 team gives an
  overview of the days work to an incoming section
  2 team
• Purpose briefly introduce material, orient next
  group, identify any problems encountered
• 6-7 reviews per student per semester, each to a
  different audience

6
Initial Evaluation Rubric
7
Evaluation Rubric short form
8
Peer- and self-evaluation

• Questions
• Participation and engagement?
• Awareness of professional communication as a
  process?
• Quality of evaluations?
• Receptivity to feedback from peers?
• Methods
• Data from evaluation forms completed in class
• Online end-of-course evaluation

9
Participation Engagement

• Evaluation form response rate 65 90
• Online course evaluation response rate 72

10
Student Awareness

• Relevant to communication by practicing vets
• Multiple opportunities for practice increased
  comfort level over the course of the semester
• Communications practice rather than peer teaching

11
Quality of Evaluations

• Peer evaluations were indiscriminately favorable
  usually all 4s or all 5s
• Self-evaluations typically 0.4 - 0.8 pts lower
  than peer evaluations range of daily average
  differences 0.5 - 1.5

12
Receptivity to feedback

• Only 20 asked to receive peer feedback
• Reasons for low receptivity unclear - less than
  full buy-in on value of feedback, fear?
• Suggests opportunities for further education in
  professionalism, critical thinking, value of high
  quality feedback

13
Red Flags?

• Failure to complete a self-evaluation
• N 16
• mean class rank 64/99, median class rank
  70/99
• Lower performance on transition reviews mean
  score 2.9 0.17 vs overall mean of 4.3 0.04
  (p lt 3E-18)
• Opting out of an exercise presented as required
  but without grading consequences correlated with
  reduced communications skills in particular and
  lower academic performance

14
Summary

• Importance of integrating relevant communications
  skills practice early and throughout the
  curriculum
• Laboratory courses can provide useful
  opportunities for practice in communication
• Students will benefit from training in the value
  effective delivery of feedback

15
Participating Faculty Instructional Support
Staff

• Gil Burns
• Cesario Zamora
• Marc Ratzlaff
• Patrick Wilson

• Briedi Gillespie
• Steve Lampa
• Paul Johnson
• Sandra Bellinger