Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Anatomy Content Delivery during COVID‐19: Comparing Student Perceptions and Impact on Student Performance

Ramnanan, Christopher; Di Lorenzo, Gabrielle; Dong, Selina; Pak, Victor; Visva, Samantha

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: While both asynchronous (ASYNCH) and synchronous (SYNCH) approaches have been used for online medical anatomy teaching during the COVID‐19 pandemic, it is unclear how ASYNCH vs. SYNCH approaches are differentially perceived by medical students, or whether these methods have any differential impact on anatomy learning. The purpose of this study was to compare first year (M1) and second year (M2) medical student perceptions and exam performance between ASYNCH and SYNCH‐delivered anatomy content. MATERIALS/METHODS: University of Ottawa M1 and M2 perceptions were surveyed (with both close‐ and open‐ended items) regarding musculoskeletal (MSK; delivered to M1) and gastrointestinal/reproductive (GI/REPRO; delivered to M2) anatomy content delivery in Fall 2020. In both cohorts, approximately 50% of the sessions were delivered in each of ASYNCH (prerecorded lectures) and SYNCH (real‐time Microsoft Teams lectures) formats. Final examinations were also analyzed, comparing items that related to content from ASYNCH and SYNCH formats, with 50% of exam items tied to each approach. For both M1 and M2 cohorts, both ASYNCH‐ and SYNCH‐related examination components featured image‐based, multiple choice question (MCQ) items, with similar proportions of structure identification items and clinical application items. RESULTS: In M1 (n=101; response rate = 62%) and M2 (n=66; response rate = 40%) groups, the percentage of students indicating a preference for ASYNCH, a preference for SYNCH, or no preference regarding content delivery, was 45%, 38%, and 18%, for M1 students, and 48%, 32%, and 20% for M2 students, respectively. Thematic analysis of open‐ended feedback revealed strengths (more engaging formative assessment; being part of a learning community) and limitations (technical issues; time‐inefficient; more difficult to review) of SYNCH delivery. Similarly, commentary also revealed strengths (time efficiency; flexibility/control) and limits (less engaging formative assessment) of ASYNCH delivery. Commentary also revealed that many students were fine with either approach. While some students noted their preferred approach was beneficial to their learning, assessment data revealed no statistical differences in class performance between ASYNCH‐ vs. SYNCH‐delivered content, for either M1 (MSK) or M2 (GI/REPRO) anatomy. CONCLUSION: While medical students may have indicated a slight preference for ASYNCH (vs. SYNCH) anatomy learning, medical students were generally satisfied with both approaches. While open‐ended commentary revealed strengths and limitations regarding both formats, the perceived notion that either SYNCH or ASYNCH was more beneficial to student learning was not supported by assessment data. SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATION: This study provides evidence to suggest that both ASYNCH and SYNCH approaches are appropriate for delivering anatomy content to medical students, given unique strengths attributed to each format, and that both approaches lead to similar performance on knowledge assessments. As such, medical anatomy educators should feel confident in choosing either ASYNCH and/or SYNCH formats when delivering their lectures.