Making Medical Histology More Interactive

1

• Making Medical Histology More Interactive
• Brian R. MacPherson, Ph.D.
• Anatomy Neurobiology, University of Kentucky
  College of Medicine, Lexington, KY

2
ANA 812 - 2002

• Rated lowest of all 1st year courses (1.82/4.0)
• 95 first year students 4 faculty
• 26 of the course point value was assigned to the
  laboratory component
• Low lab attendance and high wait time

3
Student-Defined Issues

• Had the course before, need to put in less effort
• Waiting time for faculty assistance in lab and
  perceived imbalance of time spent with each
  student by individual faculty
• Lack of interactivity
• Laboratory was perceived as a waste of time why
  not use digital images?

4
Step 1 Validating the Lab Experience

• Make the lab component a recognized integral
  aspect of the course.
• The value of the lab was increased to 50 of the
  course weight.
• A lab practical component was added to all 4
  quizzes in the course (projected images not from
  student slide boxes)

5
Step 2 Understanding the Concept of
Foundational Knowledge

• Integration of function with structure (upcoming
  physiology block)
• Second year pathology expectations - being able
  to recognize all basic tissues and organ systems

6
Step 3 Handling the Laboratory Waiting Time
Issue.

• Ensure faculty assigned to all sectors of the
  lab.
• Utilize previous exposure to histology of 1/4 to
  1/3 of the class then can act as lab assistants.

7
Lab Sectors
26 students per faculty member (now 110
students), faculty rotate.
8
Lab Groups
Each group has at least 1 student who had
histology within the past 12 months
9
Learning Aids

• Lab manual revised with specific Learning
  Objectives
• Encourage use of print atlases in the lab
• Created EM atlas (AuthorwareTM)
• Created a Digital Lab Assistant to use in the lab
  with their laptops

10
Increasing Interactivity

• Tackling the perceived lack of the sense of
  discovery that makes gross anatomy more
  appealing
• Ensuring group interactivity during the lab and
  in preparing pre-lab demos.

11
In-Lab Interactivity

• Utilize the group leader who has had a lab-based
  histology course within the past 12 months (often
  a second member has had histology within the past
  2-3 years).
• They can answer simple questions (is this a
  fibroblast?) and orient their lab mates in the
  slide.

12
Student-Lead Pre-Lab Demos

• Make their value meaningful - 20 points (out of a
  total of 375)
• Assignments handed out during the first week of
  class by random draw
• Means students must work ahead and in a team

13
Student-Lead Pre-Lab Demos

• Each group member must
• obtain the images from the slide(s) at low
  power for orientation and the subsequently highwr
  powers
• import, crop and label them in Powerpoint
• present at least one slide in the lab session to
  the class

14
Video Microscope
This transfers images to your laptop
15
Class Slide Box


Graded

PowerpointTM Presentation
Posted to Student Web for Download
16
Student-Perceived Benefits

• Felt it was the lab they learned best
• Contributed to a growing database of Pre-labs
  that can used when they study the slides on their
  own in the lab (used in MT/Final lab exams)
• Forced integration and interaction of the lab
  group (not the same one they had in gross)

17
Results

• Reducing lab wait time
• 2003 students complained the group leaders left
  lab early. Only 40 claimed the system worked.
  Faculty still extremely busy in lab.
• Opening talk on helping one another
• 2004 mandatory attendance in lab for 60 minutes
  - group leaders encouraged to study if not busy
  assisting group members. 85 claim system
  worked. Faculty noted marked decrease in
  requests allowing time for explanations.

18
Results

• Lab component now more valued and cannot be
  dismissed if an A is expected.
• Lab attendance is 100 for the first 60 minutes.
• Lab demo a valued way to increase their grade,
  add to the learning experience, and help future
  classes. ( 5 hours per demo in prep-time)

19
Results

• 2004 student evaluation placed the course rating
  at 3.1/4.0
• Student liasion committee contributed to this by
  giving them perception that the faculty were
  responding to student concerns during the course
  rather than only canvassing at the end via the
  student evaluation