MULTIMODAL INTEGRATION OF
ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY CLASSES: HOW INSTRUCTORS UTILIZE
MULTIMODAL TEACHING IN THEIR CLASSROOMS
by
Gerald M. McGraw, Jr.
B.S., University of Oklahoma, 1979
M.P.A.S., University of Nebraska, 1997
M.B.A., Webster University, 1999
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of Doctor of Education ____________________________________________________
Division of Educational Administration
Adult & Higher Education Program in the Graduate School
University of South Dakota December 2014
iii
ABSTRACT
Gerald McGraw, EdD, Educational Administration
The University of South Dakota, 2014
MULTIMODAL INTEGRATION OF
ANATOMY AND PHSYIOLOGY CLASSES: HOW INSTRUCTORS UTILIZE
MULTIMODAL TEACHING IN THEIR CLASSROOMS
Dissertation directed by Dr. Karen Card
Multimodality is the theory of communication as it applies to social and
educational semiotics (making meaning through the use of multiple signs and
symbols). The term multimodality describes a communication methodology that
includes multiple textual, aural, and visual applications (modes) that are woven
together to create what is referred to as an artifact. Multimodal teaching
methodology attempts to create a deeper meaning to course content by
activating the higher cognitive areas of the student’s brain, creating a more
sustained retention of the information (Murray, 2009).
The introduction of multimodality educational methodologies as a means
to more optimally engage students has been documented within educational
literature. However, studies analyzing the distribution and penetration into basic
sciences, more specifically anatomy and physiology, have not been forthcoming.
This study used a quantitative survey design to determine the degree to which
instructors integrated multimodality teaching practices into their course curricula.
The instrument used for the study was designed by the researcher based
on evidence found in the literature and sent to members of three
iv
associations/societies for anatomy and physiology instructors: the Human
Anatomy and Physiology Society; the iTeach Anatomy & Physiology Collaborate;
and the American Physiology Society. Respondents totaled 182 instructor
members of two- and four-year, private and public higher learning colleges
collected from the three organizations collectively with over 13,500 members in
over 925 higher learning institutions nationwide.
The study concluded that the expansion of multimodal methodologies into
anatomy and physiology classrooms is at the beginning of the process and that
there is ample opportunity for expansion. Instructors continue to use lecture as
their primary means of interaction with students. Email is still the major form of
out-of-class communication for full-time instructors. Instructors with greater than
16 years of teaching anatomy and physiology are less likely to use video or
animation in their classroom than instructors with fewer years.
This abstract of approximately 250 words is approved as to form and
content. I recommend its publication.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Though it is common and even expected that doctoral students thank their
advisor in the acknowledgements area of their dissertation, there is no way that I
can express the wealth of dedication, support, encouragement, and assistance
that Dr. Karen Card has provided throughout this process. She has consistently
and constantly been behind me, beside me, and sometimes in front of me, pulling
me along through each and every facet of this journey. I can only give her my
heartfelt thanks when she deserves so much more. She has been my mentor
and advisor yes, but she has also been my friend. Thank you Dr. Card not only
for all the major things you have done but also the myriad of little things. I can
only hope that someday I can provide the same outstanding support for a future
doctoral student where I will have the opportunity to exhibit the calm, leadership,
and friendship that you have provided me. I would also like to thank the rest of
my advisory committee for their guidance and leadership. From the first class to
the very last class, Dr. Mark Baron provided his unique leadership and guidance
salted with his dry humor. What our class discovered was that every tidbit of
information, especially that laced with a quip, would be a nugget for us to hold
onto, each one a priceless and essential component of our dissertation journey.
Dr. Aderhold, thank you for your steady guidance, your ability to apply the “real
world” to our sometimes self-created artificial one when we became too
embroiled in the process without remembering that the product we were creating
would have meaning and value. Finally, thank you to Dr. Steve Waller. I am
extremely thankful that I had the forethought to include you in my advisory
vii
committee. Having been my supervisor for almost four years, I could not have
imagined the significance of your participation in this journey. Your insight has
made this study far more than it would have ever been in your absence.
I would also like to thank my fellow faculty members and department staff.
They have put up with my constant barrage of questions, requests, and verbiage
about my dissertation subject for the last two years. They have been ever
supportive and participative and I will forever be eternally grateful. This work is
also a reflection of the support provided by my fellow Division of Basic Sciences
colleagues at the University of South Dakota. Additionally, I would like to
specifically thank Dr. Barbara Goodman. She was kind enough to help me
establish another survey source late in the process that would serve to provide
access to key information for the work.
This dissertation is dedicated to the love and support of my family. To my
daughter Jordynn who accepted that daddy was “working on his paper for
school” instead of spending the time lost with her. At the age of seven, she has
essentially grown up with daddy going through this process and I am sure she is
looking forward to filling that time with other activities more particular to her liking.
Thank you to my biggest supporter and the love of my life, my wife Julia, for
always being there. Without you this truly would not have been possible. You
have filled in those countless hours with our daughter when I was either in-class,
studying, or writing. This dissertation is very much a product of the love that we
have shared for almost ten years. I cannot imagine taking on such a
monumental task without you by my side.
viii
“Every journey, even those that seem the most difficult, begins with a
single step.” – Ancient Chinese Proverb
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ................................................................................................................ iii
Doctoral Committee .............................................................................................. v
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ....................................................................................................... xii
Chapter
1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................... 5
Research Questions ........................................................................ 6
Significance of the Study ................................................................. 6
Definition of Terms .......................................................................... 7
Limitation and Delimitations ............................................................ 8
Organization of the Study ................................................................ 9
2. Review of the Literature ........................................................................... 11
The Parameters by Which Students Learn ................................... 15
Effective Classroom Practices....................................................... 25
The Multimodal Classroom ........................................................... 30
Technology Drives Change ..................................................... 30
Specific Elements of the Multimodal Classroom ..................... 36
Multimodality in Anatomy and Physiology ..................................... 45
Summary ....................................................................................... 51
x
3. Research Methodology ............................................................................ 52
Statement of Purpose ................................................................... 53
Research Questions ...................................................................... 54
Review of Selected Literature ....................................................... 54
Population ..................................................................................... 55
Research Design ........................................................................... 57
Instrumentation ............................................................................. 60
Data Collection .............................................................................. 61
Data Analysis ................................................................................ 61
4. Findings ................................................................................................... 63
Response Rate ............................................................................. 64
Demographic Data ........................................................................ 65
Findings ........................................................................................ 70
Summary ....................................................................................... 86
5. Summary, Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations .................. 87
Summary ....................................................................................... 87
Purpose of the Study .......................................................... 87
Research Questions ........................................................... 87
Review of Literature ........................................................... 88
Methodology ....................................................................... 93
Findings .............................................................................. 94
Conclusions .................................................................................. 97
Discussion ..................................................................................... 98
xi
Recommendations ................................................................................ 102
Recommendation for Practice ..................................................... 102
Further Research ........................................................................ 103
Conclusion ............................................................................................. 104
References ....................................................................................................... 105
Appendices ....................................................................................................... 120
A. Survey Instrument ............................................................................. 120
B. Survey Matrix .................................................................................... 129
C. Survey Cover Letter .......................................................................... 132
D. Additional Results.............................................................................. 135
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Differences in Highest Degree Earned ............................................... 65
2. Differences in Teaching Status ............................................................... 66
3. Teaching Rank ........................................................................................ 67
4. Differences in Teaching Assignments in Anatomy and Physiology ......... 68
5. Differences in Total Years of Teaching Experience ................................ 69
6. Differences in Total Years of Teaching Experience in Anatomy and
Physiology .............................................................................................. 70
7. Differences in Time Spent in Each Mode ................................................ 72
8. Differences in Integration of Multimodal Elements Into the Class
Experience .............................................................................................. 74
9. Differences in How Students Were Instructed to Submit Multimodal
Elements ................................................................................................. 76
10. Instructor Perceptions of Training Quality and Quantity .......................... 77
11. Time that Technologies Were Available in the Classroom ...................... 78
12. Instructor Perception of the Administration Support ................................ 79
13. Significant Differences in Total Years Teaching In Anatomy and
Physiology .............................................................................................. 81
14. Analysis of Significant Differences in Total Years Teaching in Anatomy
and Physiology ....................................................................................... 82
15. Significant Differences in Highest Degree Earned .................................. 83
16. Analysis of Significant Differences in Highest Degree Earned ................ 84
xiii
17. Significant Differences in Teaching Status .............................................. 85
18. Analysis of Significant Differences in Teaching Status ........................... 85
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Multimodality is the theory of communication as it applies to social and
educational semiotics (making meaning through the use of multiple signs and
symbols). The term multimodality describes a communication methodology that
includes multiple textual, aural, and visual applications (modes) that are woven
together to create what is referred to as an artifact. The multimodal artifact is a
collection of modes that prescribe how the audience will interpret the information
or concept. Multimodal teaching methodology attempts to create a deeper
meaning to course content by activating the higher cognitive areas of the
student’s brain and creating a more sustained retention of the information
(Murray, 2009)
The rapid rate of technological advancement which has spurred the
growth of the online classroom educational delivery approach has created a
secondary stimulus in the traditional face-to-face classroom, redefining the
multimodal educational environment. That drive has been based on the ready
access of information in real-time within the confines of the traditional classroom
(Tucker, 2012). Access to video, animation, reference documentation, and
scholarly studies has expanded the traditional classroom into a global access
environment where students and instructors alike can draw on information from
an infinite number of resources almost instantly. The potential for integrating any
or all of the potential media types into the classroom experience is limited only by
2
the technology that is present and the willingness of the instructor to utilize it (Ball
& Moeller, 2010).
Unfortunately, the expansion of multimodal methodology has moved faster
than instructors have been willing to assimilate it into their student experiences
(Bolter & Grusin, 2000). Additionally, universities have traditionally been
reluctant to incur the additional costs of creating online access and full
multimodal capability in-classrooms because of the increased demands it creates
in the annual budget. Incorporating internet access, high-level video, telephone
conferencing, and graphic applications is expensive. The case for incurring the
additional cost is sometimes difficult to justify to leadership. It is also difficult to
apply a true dollar value to potential increases in long-term student achievement
in higher verses lower cognitive retention and/or enhancement of critical thinking
skills (Lanham, 2004). Yet students consistently tune out the noise of the
classical “lecture and listen” style classroom environment and show ever
decreasing knowledge retention. Studies have shown that traditional monologue
styled lectures do not allow students to absorb the knowledge gained in such a
manner as to make it portable and usable in other future scenarios (Breckler,
Joun, & Ngo, 2009). In clinical career fields, faculty who teach the clinically
centered courses have complained again and again how students seem to have
not absorbed even the most obvious facets of the basic science courses and
cannot apply any knowledge gained from those courses in a higher cognitive
manner (Murray, 2009).
3
The limiting factors in instituting and integrating the multimodal classroom
fall into three main areas. The first area relates to the instructors and their
willingness to alter customary traditional student experiences by redefining the
classroom into a multimodal, multi-experience environment (Davis & Shadle,
2007). Instructors must also receive adequate training to develop a multimodal
approach (Anderson, 2006). The second area is dependent upon facility
limitations. The classroom must have access to internet, video, audio, or DSN
(Devoss, Cushman, & Grabill, 2005). Finally, the third area relates to the
institution’s administration. The administration must be willing to fund the
additional upfront costs and support the annual maintenance costs of the
multimodal classroom (Ball, 2004). Additionally the administration must be
knowledgeable about the advantages of multimodal educational methodologies
over the linear classroom model (Bolter & Grusin, 2000).
Academia traditionally does not move as quickly as technology when it
comes to its application in the classroom. Though the recent literature shows
instructors are aware of multimodal methodologies, the cost of transition and the
conceptual paradigm shift makes the change problematic (Picciano, 2011). To
compound the situation, there is a significant lack of empirically based studies
devoted to the assessment of multimodal applications in any type of classroom
curriculum. The quantity and quality of assessment of multimodal classroom
environments is minimal at best. Of the studies that do exist, none are devoted
specifically to basic science curriculums supporting clinically focused, medical
career tracts (Shipka, 2005).
4
Statement of the Problem
Scholars agree that the multimodal classroom experience creates far
greater comprehension and retention than older traditional modalities among
students. Neurological studies have shown that higher cognitive brain areas,
which are not engaged in lecture-based classroom experiences, are significantly
engaged when the curriculum is presented utilizing a multimodal approach
(Lanham, 2004). Murray (2009) traced specific connections between multiple
areas of the brain’s higher cognitive areas when engaged in a multimodal
educative process. There is an absence of empirically based studies devoted to
defining the level of transition and/or limiting factors from the traditional “pen and
paper” lecture-based classroom characteristics towards the multimodal
classroom experience. This is particularly true as it applies to the basic clinical
sciences (anatomy & physiology, microbiology, and chemistry) (Picciano, 2011).
Fink (2003) stated that “significant learning experiences” makes a
substantive change in students’ lives. Research has shown that significant
learning is associated with more than memorizing information. To be sustained
and conceptually understood, information must be learned utilizing the higher
cognitive areas of the brain. To accomplish that, the information must interact
with a student’s past knowledge, emotions, and/or beliefs. The information must
also be valuable to the student and integral to their future success professionally
and/or socially (Pratt and Malabar, 1998). To create the bridge between the
students’ past and future, the information must be learned through higher
5
cognitive brain paths. Multimodal educational methodologies create a multi-
track interaction with students’ higher cognitive brain areas (Murray, 2009).
Adult learning requires that each student identify the knowledge that they
want to learn and the methodology they want to use to learn it. This puts a
responsibility on the instructor to create multiple pathways for students to
facilitate their varied learning style choices (Tough, 1979). Students are more
successful if they understand their learning style and are taught how to apply it
when obtaining knowledge. This approach transforms the instructor into that of
the helmsman of a ship; guiding the passengers (students) to successful
destinations and understanding that each student has very different goals and
approaches to successfully obtain those goals (Fink, 2003).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the extent to which multimodal
teaching methodologies were used by instructors in anatomy and physiology
courses. The study identified how multimodal teaching elements were used by
instructors in anatomy and physiology classes, how much actual time was spent
in each modality, and how the multimodal elements were submitted by students.
The study identified instructors’ perceptions of barriers that prevented anatomy
and physiology instructors from integrating multimodal methodologies as they
related to training, facility infrastructure, and administration. The study analyzed
the variation in the integration of multimodal methodologies based on instructor’s
personal characteristics.
6
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. How do instructors integrate multimodal elements into anatomy and
physiology courses?
a. How much actual course time is spent in each modality?
b. How is each multimodal element integrated into the educational
experience?
c. How is multimodal elements submitted?
2. What are instructors’ perceptions of the barriers preventing them from
optimally engaging multimodal teaching methodologies as they relate
to
a. Training
b. Facility/Infrastructure
c. Administration
3. What is the variation in the integration of multimodal methodologies
based on instructors’ personal characteristics?
Significance of the Study
Traditional educational methodologies utilized in higher learning classes
transfer knowledge only through monologue-based lecture and do not engage
students in their higher cognitive areas of their brain. Multimodal approaches
engage the brain at both the lower and higher cognitive areas (Lanham, 2004).
Though the multimodal integration has become an integral and valued element in
forward thinking online classes, its incorporation into face-to-face classes has
7
been approached with less velocity. That pace has been mirrored in clinically
focused basic science classes (Shipka, 2005).
There is a void of empirically based studies that define the level of
multimodal penetration into clinically focused basic science classes, particularly
those in anatomy and physiology. Additionally, there is an absence of formal
investigation to identify which instructor, institutional, and student characteristics
inhibit the transition (Shipka, 2005). This study evaluated the status of anatomy
and physiology curricula and correlated specific instructor characteristics that
may play an inhibitory or facilitative role in the application of multimodal
methodologies. The study also provided insight into the components that
facilitate and prohibit full integration of multimodal elements into anatomy and
physiology curricula. It subsequently identified potential follow-on studies based
on the analysis of the data collected.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity, transparent
dialogue, and an understanding of the terms applied throughout this study.
Artifacts: Surrounding furniture, art, animals (pets), any other
possessions. Anything created by humans that gives information about
the culture (Cicca, Step, & Turkstra, 2003).
Chronemics: Waiting times, amount of time spent in interaction,
punctuality (Cicca, Step, & Turkstra, 2003).
Haptics: Intensity of touch, eye contact, type of touch (Cicca, Step, &
Turkstra, 2003).
8
Kinesics : Use of hand or arm gestures, body movement, posture, eye
gaze, and facial expression (Cicca, Step, & Turkstra, 2003).
Multimodal : Utilizing a new yet familiar technological communication
mechanisms and media (Fougnie & Marois, 2006). The term
multimodality describes a communication methodology that includes
multiple textual, aural, and visual applications (modes) that are woven
together to create what is referred to as an artifact (Murray, 2009). A
multifaceted, multimodal based student experience (Lanham, 2004).
Physical Appearance: Hairstyle, cosmetics, clothing, smell (Cicca, Step,
& Turkstra, 2003).
Proxemics: Interpersonal distance, territoriality, any other space based
relationships (Cicca, Step, & Turkstra, 2003).
Semiotics: the study of meaning-making and the philosophical theory of
signs and symbols (Bezemer & Kress 2008).
Significant Learning Experience: As student-centric learning
environment whereby information is presented and deducted to the
student’s best advantage (Fink, 2003).
Vocalics: Voice volume, rate, pitch, silence, or pause (Cicca, Step, &
Turkstra, 2003).
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several factors that potentially affected the results of the study
and/or how the results were interpreted, limiting validity and generalizability of the
study results:
9
1. The Human Anatomy & Physiology Society (HAPS), iTeach, and
American Physiological Society (APS) sample populations are not
purely random in that membership is self-selected and may not
accurately represent the trends and behaviors of the total population of
all anatomy and physiology instructors in higher learning. Additionally,
instructors who took the survey tool fell into a second-level self-
selected subset that voluntarily chose to belong and participate.
2. The study was conducted as a snapshot of the data (summer, 2014)
and is not usable for defining the timeframes required for transitioning
from one degree of multimodal teaching to another.
3. The tool used to measure the variables within this study (Appendix B)
was developed by the investigator based on the literature search. It
was scrutinized via a formal critique and a subsequent formal review.
Utilization of another tool may give variable results.
Organization of the Study
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 presents the
introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the
study, and limitations/delimitations. Chapter 2 contains a review of related
literature and current research regarding the parameters by which students learn,
effective classroom practices, and multimodal methodologies and applications in
the face-to-face classroom. Chapter 3 contains the design, rationale, and
methodology for the study. Chapter 4 contains the analysis of the reported data
and the subsequent findings. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings, conclusions,
11
CHAPTER 2
Review of Selected Literature and Research
The study of effective teaching practices within higher education, and
relevant research and literature was reviewed in this chapter. General classroom
theories, applications, and methodologies as they apply to the optimal set of
effective teaching practices in higher learning classrooms have been researched
and reported on extensively. Multimodal applications and methodologies have
been categorized and defined as they apply to the educational environment.
Selection of the literature was based on timeliness of the document, the
focus of the original research, the significance of the research validated using
evidence-based practice methodologies of hierarchy, and the pertinence of the
research to this study. Initially the approach to identify and collate literature for
this research project was to review everything written about traditional classroom
theory, multimodal teaching methodologies, effective teaching practices in higher
education, and effective teaching practices specifically in medical/clinical focused
education. Boote and Beile (2005) described this approach as creating an
essential foundation in substantive research. Though this methodology provided
a wide range of focused as well as tangential reference publications, it became
evident that the plethora of information would far out-reach the scope of this
study. As Maxwell (2006) suggested, the literature presented within this study
are those that emphasize and focus on its central theme; effective teaching, adult
learning practices in higher education, and subsequently effective teaching
12
practices in educating students who are working towards medical/clinical career
tracks.
The chapter is presented as a literature review in four sections: (1) The
parameters by which students learn; (2) Effective classroom practices; (3) the
Multimodal classroom, and (4) Multimodality in the anatomy and physiology
classroom. The chronological and philosophical methodologies that have been
applied by instructors and educational systems historically have focused upon
putting the student in the optimal learning environment. Historical theories
generally focused more on the delivery of the information than on how the
student might best assimilate it; that is, taking a faculty-centric or an educational
system-centric approach rather than including the student as a significant player
in the planning. For instance, the behaviorist theory was one that recommended
putting the student in a series of repetitive experiences so that over time they
would be able to complete the given task without any consideration to the
student’s internal thought process (Grippen & Peters, 1984).
How students learn can be as diverse as the number of students in a
given classroom. Successful knowledge is that in which the student makes a
chronological and philosophical connection between knowledge and experience
that they already have, the new knowledge, and the value that the new
knowledge will have in their future. Each individual comes to the educational
table with a different set of past experiences, prior knowledge, cultural beliefs,
social interactions, and levels of maturity. Each student learner enters the
classroom with a different set of aspirations of the future creating dissimilarity in
13
their assessment of the innate value of a given curriculum content (Bransford,
Brown, & Cocking, 1999).
Section one (the parameters by which students learn) presents the
variables present within the students themselves. It explores the neurological
interactions that occur to assimilating knowledge as well as the social interlays
and their importance to the adult student. Additionally, it depicts the effects of
past experiences and past knowledge, how a given student gains new
knowledge, and the importance of creating educational value for the curriculum
content. It is imperative that a student perceives that the knowledge will have
significant importance in their future endeavors. Creating a multimodal arena
whereby the student experiences the knowledge in varied and multifaceted
manners creates fertile ground for retention (Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, &
Charalampos, 2006).
Application of a student-centric classroom requires an in-depth
understanding of the process steps that are required to turn theory into action.
In a more step-by-step fashion, identification of pertinent elements is essential for
the instructor in creating the optimal learning environment. Determining how and
when to engage the students in the planning phases of the curriculum so that
they become engaged in the learning process is essential. Identifying which
learning elements are important in developing the student experience is crucial to
ensure a multifaceted approach that maximally engages the students. The goal
is to provide the students with the most optimal chance of absorbing the content
knowledge and reapplying it in future endeavors in a multitude of potential
14
scenarios. Engaging the student utilizing both their lower and higher cognitive
skills is essential in determining the optimal learning situation (Bland, Saunders,
Kreps, & Frish, 2007).
Section two (effective classroom practices) identifies the application of
experiences that include development of critical thinking skills, integration of
curriculum knowledge into past knowledge and experiences, and development of
educational currency or curriculum value in the minds of the student. This
section will expand on which methodologies and modalities have been shown to
be effective in student learning. Technological advances have altered the
classroom environment both within and without. Student interaction is no longer
limited to the hours spent in the classroom or during office hours. Lecture-only
based classrooms cannot deliver the three dimensional experience of the
multimodal classroom (Karabulut, 2012). The internet has created a means
where education can occur in an asynchronous manner. The instructor and the
student no longer have to be at the same place doing the same thing at the same
time. The online educational world has changed how the student may access
knowledge. What is not obvious but is never the less as profound is that the
online educational experience has altered the expectations for the face-to-face
experience significantly.
Section three (the multimodal classroom) presents the approaches that
are included under the umbrella of multimodal educational methodologies and
how those approaches create an individualized experience for each student.
Integration of social interaction between students both in the classroom and out
15
of the classroom electronically is now the standard. The integration of texting,
social media platforms, and online data into the classroom has become essential.
The integration of all the potential technology is more than just a mere trend but
an opportunity to create a multifaceted, multimodal-based experience for the
student. Coined “multimodal” this technologically driven approach provides the
opportunity to engage the student in varied approaches that can be woven into
an intricate pattern of sights, sounds, media, and timing to maximize student
engagement and subsequently student learning (Newman, Couturier, & Seurey,
2004).
Section four (multimodality in anatomy and physiology) focused more
closely on how multimodal has been and could be utilized more extensively
within an anatomy and physiology classroom (Shipka, 2005). The dynamics of
developing a true multimodal classroom within the confines of the content
material that must be included in the transfer of knowledge creates a more
defined process within the basic science classroom than perhaps other
alternatives, and predictably result in better student retention of the material over
traditional methodologies. Web-based laboratory experiences potentially offer
students the opportunity to repeat experiences with almost no cost over
traditional classroom lab experiences which have proven to be cost prohibitive in
many instances (Gopal, Herron, & Mohn, (2010).
The Parameters by Which Students Learn
The over-reaching theories of adult learning require a series of interwoven
mechanisms and processes that create congruency from theory to the
16
classroom. Understanding which elements maximize the instructor-to-student
interaction most efficiently and create an optimal learning environment is
essential to achieving the best student outcomes possible. Understanding what
students require to be successful is essential when crafting the in-class
mechanisms of multimodality. There are several well-laid precepts that have to
be considered when designing the “significant classroom experience” (Fink,
2003).
Ambrose (2010) defined seven main principles that contribute to how
students obtain and integrate new knowledge which are applicable to the
multimodal educational approach.
The first principle was that students do not come into the new
classroom as empty vessels but instead arrive with all the previous
knowledge, experiences, and beliefs that they have developed
throughout their prior lives which both facilitate and limit their ability to
interpret and incorporate new knowledge into their collective
knowledge trust.
The second principle was that each student has a unique manner in
which they organize and assimilate new knowledge. Students with
more randomized approaches may have more difficulties with technical
and abstract knowledge.
The third principle was that the level of success that the student
experiences in the classroom and incorporates the new knowledge into
their collective memories is very much dependent upon their motivation
17
to do so. The more motivated they are, the more that students engage
in the flow of information and participation in the classroom.
The fourth principle was that not only must students acquire
component skills, they must also have the opportunity to practice those
skills within a safe and cooperative learning environment.
The fifth principle was that the knowledge presented must be goal-
oriented with predictable, repetitive, and consistent feedback so the
student is constantly aware of where they are in the journey and how
far they have yet to go.
The sixth principle Ambrose presented was that the knowledge being
assimilated must interact with the students at their social, emotional,
and intellectual interfaces to be successfully integrated.
The seventh and last principle was that in addition to gaining the core
knowledge presented in the course curriculum, students must learn to
become self-learners with the ability to self-monitor their strengths and
weaknesses when approaching a given scenario.
Effectively engaging students starts with an understanding of how they
learn and what motivates them to learn. The passive “banker” format of learning
where the instructor imparts his/her knowledge expecting each student to
automatically absorb it and then regurgitate it back at a later date has proven to
be insufficient (Freire, 1970). Students do not learn well in instructor-centered
learning environments where the only voice in the classroom is the instructor’s.
They learn more efficiently when they are engaged in the knowledge and are
18
participating in a dialogue with the instructor and other students (Bligh, 2000).
Successful learning is accomplished when the student is able to connect their
new knowledge with past experiences and beliefs, and perceive that this new
found information will be important to them in the future. Individuals are learners
from early childhood, learning billions of pieces of data about things, people,
language, etc., with an inherent curiosity that drives their learning in a positive
and self-satisfying course (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999).
Students must see the relevance of the knowledge being taught and there
must be a connection between that knowledge and predictable future
opportunities to utilize it (Svinicki, 2004). Students must be motivated and
inspired to approach the learning with enthusiasm and passion. This is most
often accomplished through the mentorship of the people around the student,
particularly the instructors (Feldman, 1998). The knowledge must create an
emotional attachment in students that generates the need for them to want to
learn and remember it. It must engage the frontal lobe of the brain as well as the
limbic system creating a connection between the learning process areas and the
emotional centers respectively (Lanham, 2004). The content must be relevant to
the student, and important to them emotionally and academically. Instructors
must show enthusiasm and passion for the content, creating connectivity
between themselves, the student, and the knowledge. The content must be
presented so that it is equally pertinent to all the students, taking into account
differences in ages, generational variations, racial particularities, gender
distinctions, etc. (Mangurian, 2005). Students learn effectively when the
19
educational information is delivered in a multi-modal methodology; that is the
knowledge is delivered in multiple modalities and utilizing different approaches
(Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Charalampos, 2006).
Adult learners, in particular, demand that the knowledge be portable not
only to support their career aspirations but also their emotional lives. The
information must create an opportunity for reflection so that it can be quickly
integrated into their life’s “toolbox” for future utilization. Adult learners do not
learn well with rote memorization and have little interest in theoretical
applications that have no real practical use. They must be able to able share
their views with others (in-class and out of class), integrating it with past life
experiences, and testing their perceptions against other students views as well
as the instructor’s observations and experience (Aslanian, 2001).
In addition to basic cognitive learning (memorizing factual and data-based
knowledge, identifying patterns and concepts, and analyzing and synthesizing
information), higher learning courses must integrate other equally significant
relevant components to include psychomotor, affective, social, and ethical
elements. Psychomotor skills are comprised of the ability to “manipulate specific
objects correctly and efficiently” which is imperative in careers such as art,
engineering, and healthcare related fields. There is a significant connection
between higher cognitive learning and students’ ability to integrate their emotions
and past experiences with the knowledge under scrutiny (McDrury & Alterio,
2000). Affective skills include the capacity to integrate knowledge into the
students’ internal emotional dynamics, affecting how they receive information,
20
respond to knowledge from outside sources, and value knowledge. The effective
result is vital, particularly for students seeking healthcare, counseling, or ministry-
related careers. It is also extremely important in management, human resources,
and marketing professions (NMC, 2009). Social learning outcomes are focused
on group efforts and teamwork, and creating a collaborative and interactive
atmosphere. They are essential in healthcare and social settings as well as with
any interactive endeavor. Ethical outcomes have come to the forefront of
education because of the need to engage and nurture students into being
accountable for their moral choices both personally and professionally. The
ethical outcome has application in all areas of a student’s life but is particularly
important with career tracks comprising life-giving and life-sustaining services to
others (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1999).
When asked, students consistently criticized the manner in which
instructors traditionally teach, in contrast to the high expectations put upon them
to learn. The most common negative criticism is that traditional instructors
focused on dissemination of knowledge through lectures (with or without graphics
and overheads) even when more technological methodologies were available.
Concurrently, students express a concern for the general lack of hands-on
learning in the form of interactive exercises, experiences, and opportunities.
Students articulated that generally they were not good self-directed learners, felt
that they were not learning as much as was possible, and were concerned that
college instructors felt no compulsion to interact with them. The result is that
21
students were not motivated to engage in the class with any degree of depth
(Courts & McInerney, 1993).
Within the framework of higher education, students felt that the learning
was disjointed, fragmented, and had no continuity between one course and
another. Because of the traditional lack of interaction between themselves and
the instructor as well as between themselves and other students, students
perceived themselves as isolated, depressed, and feeling no attachment to the
learning process (Gouge, 2009). Because it is expected that students spend two
hours out of class studying for each hour in-class, creating a 30 hour demand for
the average 15 credit per semester student, students perceived the task as
undoable when added to their other time demands of family and work (Fink,
2003).
To overcome the traditional limitations of the non-interactive education,
Fink (2003) suggested that higher education instructors incorporate “significant
learning experiences” into the curriculum. These are defined as experiences that
create a significant alteration or modification in the student’s life. Significant
learning experiences are far more than just feeding the student’s short-term
memory with the intention of measuring their retention through subsequent
multiple choice exams at a later date (Florida, Kaimal, Oblinger, & Blessing,
2007). They are experiences that generally show attachments at both ends of
the student’s chronological learning track; one that is founded in past learning
experiences and a second that is attached to predictable and valued experiences
in the future. Fink described this as the inserting knowledge not only into the
22
student’s “course file” but into their “life file.” It makes the knowledge more than
just another piece of trivia with no discernible substantive value to the student’s
perception of their future; it makes it a congruent piece of information that is
melded into their day-to-day deliberations (Graham & Robinson, 2007). It also
means getting students to actively engage in their own learning and expanding
their motivation and desire to understand. Fink defined the significant learning
experience as that event where the student is an active participant and the
knowledge attained creates a lasting and persistent change because it is
perceived as valuable by the student. The expectation is that students will
achieve better critical thinking skills, better interaction capabilities with their
peers, and become more engaged in the world around them (Hill, 2004).
Fink’s (2003) “significant learning” philosophy includes six major facets:
foundational knowledge, application, integration, the human dimension, caring,
and learning how to learn. Foundational knowledge is that information which is
incorporated into each student’s past experiences and knowledge. It includes
not only the knowledge pertinent to the present course curriculum but all of the
tangential and peripheral knowledge the student has accumulated through their
past education and their past experiences (Gardner, 1983). Foundation
knowledge creates a unique signature for each student dictating how they
interpret and assimilate new knowledge based on their past frames of reference.
Foundation knowledge sets the table for how the student will engage in critical
thinking exercises, creative scenarios, and practical experimentation (Massie,
2003). The art of communication is rooted in this area since the manner in which
23
a student interacts with others is strongly based on how their past experiences
(George, 2002).
Integration is the manner in which students are able to categorize,
separate, integrate, and associate ideas and knowledge. It allows learners to
make significant connections between past knowledge and the present course
content under consideration. This also is important for students to be able to
understand how different courses have congruency in successfully obtaining
global goals (Willingham, 2008). In many ways integration is connected to
foundation knowledge in that foundation knowledge represents the student’s past
experiences while integration refers to how the student blends the new
knowledge in with the old (Fink, 2003).
The human dimension incorporates how students feel about themselves
and how they interact with others. It also includes the student’s awareness of
how the knowledge applies to them both on a personal plane as well as how the
knowledge has implications on a greater social scale (Vie, 2008). The student’s
self-image plays an integral part in how the information is absorbed and
dispersed. The student also acquires insight into how the information affects
others and how others perceive both positive and negative implications
associated with the information. The human dimension enables students to see
the social significance of the knowledge that they have learned (Fink, 2003).
In the area of “significant learning,” caring plays an important role in
determining how much the students value the knowledge incrementally or in its
entirety. The new knowledge may rekindle old feelings, both good and bad, or it
24
may create a new paradigm of feelings that incorporate past experiences with the
new content. When students care about something in a personal or psychosocial
way, they are more likely to highly value the information and retain it (Fink, 2003).
Finally, learning how to learn provides the super strata within which the
other categories reside (Fink, 2003). Learning how to learn is the art of how
students better learn to acquire the significant elements of the content knowledge
and subsequently apply it in a myriad of social, professional, and individual
scenarios. It also creates the lifelong learning drive in students that take them to
far greater heights then just memorizing data to meet near future demands (Fink,
2003)
Nelson (2010) suggested that facilitating how students assimilate
knowledge requires a well-planned and comprehensively formulated toolbox. It
should include multiple course formats, a wide-range of teaching methodologies,
and “teaching moves” (the manner in which instructors present and explain
course content, the learning strategies shared with the students, and the in-class
activities integrated into curriculum). Only with a well pre-planned, yet flexible
application of these three elements can an instructor ensure the optimal learning
outcomes.
Course formats comprise the class setting and which activities are
integrated into the content. It can include lecture only, any combination of lecture
and discussion periods, laboratories, skill sessions, or seminars. The
combination of formats does not appear to be as important as the amount of
student in-class activity and interactivity. The selection of the appropriate format
25
combination based on the planned class activity is essential (Hoyte & Perera,
2000).
Effective Classroom Practices
Effective classroom practices and approaches that effectively serve
student learning have been debated ad infinitum (Burgan, 2006). The lecture
format of teaching has undergone immense scrutiny and negativity. Many
studies have shown that even lecture formats can be effective if presented by
exceptional lecturers. To be effective the lectures must include current research
in the presented field of study, and integrate information and data from a wide
based of resources. Lectures must also contain personal observations, provide
valid research, model and teach critical thinking skills, and engage students in
such a manner as to motivate them and build an intrinsic passion for the field of
study (Thompson, Bolin, & Coe, 2012).
Alternately, data suggest that lecture focused methodology can be
significantly limiting with negative results (Zoller & Tsparlis, 1997). Monologue-
based lecture provides only a one-way manner of communication and only
engages students in their lower cognitive areas. This creates a process whereby
students are spoon-fed the information with the expectation that they will
regurgitate it back during some future exam. This promotes a setting where
students retain little of the content, and fails to engage students in their higher
cognitive skill areas (Bland, Saunders, & Kreps-Frish, 2007).
A third cluster of authors suggest that the methods themselves have little
to do with the overall outcome but it is more so the quality of the modality being
26
presented (Prince, 2004). A significant subset of students may actually exhibit a
resistance to the student-centered models (Sorcinelli, 1991). In their study of
instructor-centered methods and their efficiency (Walker, Cotner, Baepler, and
Decker, 2008), compared and contrasted faculty-centered approaches with
student-centered approaches. For this study, student-centered approaches
consisted of shortened lectures (broken up throughout the class period),
ungraded group activities, announced quizzes, multiple choice exams, and some
graded homework. In contrast, faculty-centered methodologies were defined as
traditional lectures, unannounced quizzes, and multiple choice exams. Their
conclusion was that statistically there was little difference in the mean between
the two groups. Additionally, when students were surveyed and asked to
evaluate the course as a whole as well as their instructors, the faculty-centered
methodology was significantly higher. Knight and Wood (2006) suggested that
the student-centered model can be very effective when integrated into large
lecture presentations; combining both approaches into an interwoven,
comprehensive classroom environment.
The most substantive question, no matter which approach or combination
of approaches is utilized, is whether the result engages the students’ higher
cognitive learning areas and perpetuates critical thinking experiences (Crowe,
Dirks, & Wenderoth, 2008). How much of the student-centered learning modality
is integrated into the historical lecture-based approach predictably can also have
a significant influence on student retention and comprehension (Allen & Tanner,
2005). Marton (1992) described the goals of student success as they apply to
27
the higher cognitive intellect in that they should, “change the way a person
experiences, conceptualizes, or understands” (p. 46) the course content. Taylor
and Mariennau (1997) suggested that, “knowledge is neither given nor gotten,
but constructed” engaging students’ ability to, “take perspective on one’s own
beliefs and the realization that learning and development are worthy life-long
goals.” The instructor must be prepared to build upon the existing knowledge in
a student’s brain to ensure that the student not only retains the knowledge but
understands the mechanism that helped them successfully remember it (Kegan,
1994).
Keegan (2000) suggested that learning is more than just acquisition of
knowledge but more so real-life modification of behaviors and beliefs. The
neurological event of learning is the ability to make meaning of the information
more than just memorizing it. The course curriculum and its core content
become an expansion of what each adult learner already knows through past
experiences making the new material more familiar and more likely to be retained
in the student’s long-term memory. This increases the potential that the student
will shift from a passive learning mode to an active one (Taylor, Marienau, &
Fidler, 2000).
Campbell and Smith (1997) compared what they refer to as the “old and
new paradigms” as they apply to teaching in the college environment. They
suggested that in the old paradigm knowledge is something that is doled out by
the faculty to the students, while the new paradigm is one whereby the faculty
and the students construct the knowledge concurrently. The student moves from
28
the passive vessel to be filled in the old paradigm to an actively integrated
participant constructing and transforming the knowledge before them into the
new one. Singular memorization is traded for relating with the new information
and actively integrating it into both past and future experiences. Faculty
transform from individuals who simply classify and sort information to those that
actively participate in the student’s development. Students no longer simply
strive to complete the assigned requirements but instead focus on the goal of
being a lifelong learner both within and outside of their professional focus.
Relationships transform from impersonal to interactive, and the power within the
classroom moves from faculty-centric to a participative empowerment between
faculty and students. Technology moves from being the subject of a lecture to
being the driving force in delivering the information.
Fink (2003) suggested that courses that entice students to engage early
and consistently must challenge the student with knowledge that will be
significant to them in the future and yet has roots in their past experiences. In
addition, learning must highly active and interactive. Courses must include
instructors that honestly care about the subject content they are teaching, and
those instructors must interact well with the students they teach. There must be
a congruent and consistent methodology of feedback that provides both the
student and instructor with an accurate accounting of where the student is in the
journey at any given time. Students retain knowledge more comprehensively
and for extended lengths of time when the knowledge builds a bridge between
their past experiences and emotions, and predictable future scenarios. For
29
instance, a nursing student who has had a close relative with a disease the class
is studying has a past emotional bridge to the content, and understands the value
that the knowledge will provide for his/her treatment of future patients.
Pratt and Malabar (1998) identified the principles that support the need to
bridge the student’s past experiences and emotions with future scenarios. They
suggested that present learning must be built on past knowledge or emotion to
ensure retention. They also suggested that the linkage between the student’s
past and present knowledge is itself as important as the information. Bransford,
Brown, & Cocking (2000) identified three doctrines that facilitate student learning
with consideration to linking their past with their future. Instructors must
understand that each student has a unique mix of past experiences and
expectations for the application of future knowledge. To successfully achieve
deep understanding, students must be given more than objective data; they must
be given the relevancy of the information and how it will be useful at a later time.
Students must be able to develop their own metacognitive strategies so that the
knowledge can be used in future significant scenarios.
Technologically focused components of the student-centered approach
include using technology for real-time feedback (web-based, text, or clicker
response methodologies to survey students anonymously), asking abstract or
scenario-based questions, the inclusion of student team projects that are
presented to the class, problem-based or scenario-based learning, and case
studies that incorporate student led learning and modeling. The amount of
instructor control verses student control also has a significant effect on
30
successful student outcomes. The main predictor of success consistently
appears to be how much and how often students’ higher cognitive learning
centers are engaged (Thompson, Bolin, & Coe, 2012).
Learning should be high energy and create dynamic student learning
engagements. The learning must also create a lasting change that extends into
the student’s future professional and social life. The knowledge should enhance
the student’s life, enhance their social interactions with other students in and out
of their career track, and prepare them for future success. Course design should
include the nature of the knowledge, student characteristics, instructor
characteristics, and social culture (local, regional, and global). Students should
be guided through multifaceted processes that engage their higher cognitive
brain areas and help build their critical thinking skills (Fink, 2003).
The Multimodal Classroom
Advances in technology have been the driving force for the evolution of
the multimodal classroom. The primary stimulus has been through online
education which has extended into the face-to-face classroom environment
(Newman, Couturier, & Seurey, 2004). Students’ expectations are that the
technology they experience outside of the classroom should be integrated into
the curriculum to include internet interaction and social media sites (Wang, Chun-
Fu, & Wei-Cheih, 2012).
Technology drives change. High-tech advances in recent years have
created the opportunity to incorporate multiple levels of media and technology
into the classroom experience, creating the potential for a highly sophisticated
31
and interactive relationship between the students, the instructor, and the
knowledge itself (Newman, Couturier, & Seurey, 2004). The dissemination of
knowledge no longer is limited to the boundaries of the brick and mortar of the
classroom walls; it can now be delivered and experienced from literally
anywhere. The online education explosion has created a concurrent explosion in
the face-to-face classroom, resulting in the potential for information to be
delivered and experienced through multimodal applications that can be delivered
in an interwoven methodology (Domingo, 2012).
Communicating knowledge from instructor to student in the most effective
and efficient manner is generally the main thrust of most classroom environments
but represents only a piece of the total ideal education experience. Teaching
students how to learn and how to apply knowledge in an abstract, multi-scenario
manner in relevant future circumstances is the significant “other side of the coin”
that often gets missed in traditional, mono-modal, lecture-based classrooms
(Karabulut, 2012). Instructors can no longer teach only the course content but
must additionally consider critical thinking skills that facilitate students’ ability to
apply new knowledge in ever changing environments and circumstances (Siegel,
1984).
Though scholars have long identified the need to integrate critical thinking
skills opportunities into course contents, in truth the inclusion does not
consistently reach fruition. This is in part due to the extra curriculum planning,
classroom management, and more sophisticated classroom activities that are
required to introduce a critical thinking skills theme (Wright, 1995). Approaches
32
that include intra- and extra-classroom discussions, writing activities (case
studies or journaling), and open-ended questions that can have varied correct
responses depending on the context in which they are applied or the culture in
which they are interpreted create an interaction that is less instructor only defined
and more students and instructor defined (Karabulut, 2012).
Bezemer and Kress (2008, p. 166) defined the term “mode” as a “socially
and culturally shaped resource for meaning making.” Critical thinking growth can
be enabled through the use of multiple tangential interactions that observe and
examine the presented content in varying “modes” that replace the traditional
linear classroom (uni-modal) with multiple methodologies (multimodal). The
multimodal (non-linear, multi-faceted) classroom can include elements of
imagination, interpretive analysis, dynamic and interactive experiences, visual
and/or auditory participation, and mobility that utilize the ever expanding
technologies (Coiro, Knobel, Lanshear, & Leu, 2008). The multimodal classroom
encompasses all that is technologically possible in an interaction that engages
students where they learn. This creates the potential for numerous variations of
delivery and generates a learning opportunity where students must abstract
information from multiple sources and then generate their own unique result.
When students must then recall the information in future alternative scenarios,
they are more able to apply the actual knowledge appropriately (New London
Group, 2000).
The multimodal classroom approach creates a multi-literacy learning
environment that is less likely to be culturally filtered. It is much more likely to
33
create an opportunity to evaluate and critically dissect the content knowledge,
resulting in knowledge that can then be applied by the student in multiple
circumstances (Anstey & Bull, 2006). In the multimodal approach the student
becomes critically oriented to the information in such a manner that they can then
apply it in the ever evolving digital media and interactive world (Leu, 2002).
The multimodal classroom approach confronts students’ multiple
interfaces whether they are media focused and/or situation focused. In either
spectrum, the instructor attempts to engage the student utilizing a multitude of
sensory focused interactions that enable all students, despite their foundational
learning methodology, to engage in the content in an environment that best suits
them (Kress, 2004). The multimodal philosophy is based on the perception that
humans interact utilizing touch, vision, hearing, etc. in an individually specific
manner and that when and how they use each tool is based on their past
experiences and interactions. The multimodal methodology is based on not
being defined within a single medium of communication but diverse elements
creating a harmony within the class content in which all who listen take away the
important essentials (Kress & Leuween, 2001).
According to Beaudouin-Lafon (2004), the communicating individual
generates a sensory-motor complex that is perceived by the receiving individual.
That interaction can be positively or negatively interpreted by the receiving
individual such that they achieve understanding that is incrementally altered
within the variations of the interaction and remains both constant and concurrent
between past and future similar interactions. By combining the alternative
34
interactions and alternative communication media, the receiving individual will
interpret the events less as a basic communication phenomenon but more as an
interpretation of the variation in the signals given. This creates understanding at
not only the conscious level but also at the sub-conscious level (Munck & Mayer,
2000).
All interaction is by definition multimodal when conclusions and
alterations in knowledge are more so shaped then by what is heard. Humans
communicate through a multiplicity of mechanisms that include gestures,
posture, facial expressions, proximity between the communicating individuals,
volume, and appropriateness of diction and verbiage. All elements of an
interaction play some minor or major role in its ultimate retention. All
movements, local or peripheral objects, and/or primary or tangential noise have
some level of influence on the ultimate memorability of the event (Norris, 2004).
Cicca, Step, and Turkstra (2003) broke these potential variations into eight
categories, one being a verbal code (spoken language) and the other seven
being nonverbal codes:
Kinesics – use of hand or arm gestures, body movement, posture, eye
gaze, and facial expression.
Vocalics – voice volume, rate, pitch, silence or pause.
Physical appearance – hairstyle, cosmetics, clothing, smell.
Haptics – intensity of touch, eye contact, type of touch.
Proxemics – interpersonal distance, territoriality, any other space
based relationships.
35
Chronemics – waiting times, amount of time spent in interaction,
punctuality.
Artifacts – surrounding furniture, art, animals (pets), any other
possessions
Spoken language (verbal expression) is defined as a communicative
code.
To be successful the multimodal classroom experience must include
advances in technology, particularly when those advances are part of the
student’s normal daily routine. Integrating the use of cell phones into the
classroom, employing the various social media applications, and creating an
interactive classroom experience connect the student’s foundation of knowledge
with the new information in a manner that utilizes new yet familiar technologies
(Fougnie & Marois, 2006). The efficient application of the full range of
multimodal modalities must take into account eight major principles:
Retention is significantly improved utilizing a combination of words and
pictures over just words alone.
Students must see the connections between words and pictures so
they must be presented proximal to each other.
Students sustain learning better when words and graphics/pictures are
presented at the same time instead of successively.
Learning is optimized when extraneous elements (words, pictures,
audio) are eliminated.
36
Students learn better from animation and narration rather than just
animation and on-screen text.
Students retain information better when there is no redundancy
between modalities
Design effects are higher for low-knowledge learners than high-
knowledge learners, and higher for high-spatial learners than low-
spatial learners
As the content complexity increases, the impact of direct manipulation
of the animation and pacing also increase (Mayer & Moreno, 2003, p.
233).
Specific elements of the multimodal classroom. The first thing
instructors must consider is their role in the multimodal classroom. The instructor
must also assume the alternate positions of researcher, production engineer, and
director. These new job requirements are strange and foreign to many traditional
instructors (Plenderleith & Adamson, 2009). The best way to think about the
classroom is to consider it as an entertainment arena in which students are not
only educated but entertained. The thought is repugnant to most senior
instructors but is nevertheless a true interpretation of the demands of the
multimodal classroom experience. The goal is to produce sophisticated
classroom experiences that promote higher cognitive interactions as well as
critical thinking skills (Wright, 1995).
The best way to consider the “production” of a multimodal classroom is to
first identify what is possible in the classroom based on its size, logistics, media
37
availability, etc. The instructor must determine which elements are available in
the realm of video, audio, and animation? The components to consider are does
the classroom have an overhead projector with computer input (wireless or
hardwired) (Tutkun, 2011); does it have a “Smartboard” (Goodin, 2012) that
allows presentation of material by touching the white board; does it have access
to the internet that can be displayed to the class; can content be added through
audio sources (telephone call in, conference call capability, and/or internet)
(Wang, Mattick, & Dunne, 2010); and is there computer access for instructors
and students in the classroom? If the answer is yes to all of those, then the
instructor has the optimal arena to “produce” his/her next class.
The next objective is to determine which media is appropriate with which
content elements. As Wright (1995) stated, the more sophisticated and complex
information elements are, the better they are retained by students when they are
presented in an animated or video based format. Short videos (animated or
otherwise) are the best mode to utilize as the primary cognitive element with
supplementation from other modalities (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Interactive
exercises and interactive lectures as supplements can also be considered. Many
texts now come with instructor resources that include animations, short videos,
and interactive exercises that promote student participation (Alvermann &
Wilson, 2011). Many more alternatives can be found online where there are
some excellent sources available. For instance, a totally free site that has many
very appropriate videos for almost any acumen is the Khan Academy
(https://www.khanacademy.org ). YouTube© has a multitude of very well done
38
short videos (http://www.youtube.com/ ); with the caveat that the instructor will
need to review the material for accuracy and validity. Additionally the Higher
Learning Commission has other resources (http://www.ncahlc.org/ ). Literally
every career track has at least one site and more often many sites where
animated or video based information can be obtained. Wikipedia
(http://www.wikipedia.org/ ) can be a source but the instructor must closely
review all the material for accuracy and validity (LaFrance & Calhoun, 2012). It is
also a good place to locate additional sources of information. The instructor has
to be the researcher in this case and scour the internet, institutional library, and
public library for potential elements that can be included in the course content.
Another multimodal mode is the online web-based lab experience.
Historically lab experimentation, particularly in the basic science and medical
fields, has been messy, expensive, and required dedicated space in which to
perform each experiment (Gopal, Herron, & Mohn, 2010). The cost was so
prohibitive that students were either only given a single opportunity to complete
the experiment, or for more expensive experiences, the students would
congregate around the instructor while he/she completed the exercise. The
result was often less than favorable. The web, due in part to the expansion of
online education, has generated another methodology: the web-based video lab
experiment (Lin, 2006). In this modality, students perform their experiments
utilizing an online interface. Unlike the historical methodology, if the student
makes a mistake, he/she can reenact the experiment again and again until they
get it correct and/or understand the content. Almost all up to date, multimodal
39
based textbooks incorporate this type of student interaction. The web-based lab
experience can be used as an individual experience, a group experience, and/or
an entire class experience, depending on the content and outcome goals
(Straub, 2007).
The multimodal classroom can include several other strategies that
generally fall in line with narrative learning. The goal of narrative learning is to
create a blending between the academic, sociologic and socioeconomic, and
individual emotional elements of the student’s life. This approach allows the
student to combine past knowledge, emotions, behaviors, and sensations with
the new knowledge; assimilating them into their higher cognitive learning areas
(Keen & Valley-Fox, 1989). An example of this approach is the short vignette
where the class views a video which is used as the foundation of a directed
dialogue. When the use of technology is not available, other alternatives can be
employed. For instance students can be put into preformatted role playing or a
scenario can be presented in written or verbal format. Whatever the format, the
result is that students are given an opportunity to interpret the information and
respond to it utilizing their past believes and experiences. This approach creates
not only a substantive event that can be incorporated with their past experiences,
it can create major changes in their foundational beliefs (Clark & Dirkx, 2000).
A second example of employing the narrative learning approach is the use
of case studies. Students complete case studies, accomplish critical reviews of
incidents or events, and/or complete exemplars. Case studies can be applied in
a myriad of formats. For instance, they can be accomplished within the
40
classroom as a group project (Casotti, Beneski, & Knabb, 2013). The case study
is presented to the class and then the class is broken down into groups to
answer a preset set of questions or to identify a set of solutions to the presented
problem. Case studies can also be used as an investigative tool for students to
do in-depth research on a given subject (Morton, 2000). In either case the
results can be simply turned into the instructor for evaluation or used as the
content subject for class discussion (depending on time and subject matter).
Case studies provide a “how to approach” that enables the student to critically
evaluate a given situation, event, etc., and then respond to that circumstance
utilizing past knowledge, experience, and beliefs (Ockjean, Utke, & Hupp, 2005).
This methodology also makes the information easily portable to other future
scenarios where the knowledge can be applied (Baumgartner & Merriam, 1999).
The third example of the narrative approach is the use of group projects.
Students in this format are given a group or class-wide project with a defined set
of deliverables. For instance, a group may be assigned to research a given
subject and then present it to the class utilizing one or several multimodal
strategies. The students can be allowed to work on their projects within and/or
outside of the classroom. Project deliverables can include a PowerPoint©
presentation, a classroom presentation with group work, a non-PowerPoint©
presentation with a follow-on survey or quiz, and/or a class participation exercise
that teaches the rest of the class how to accomplish a given strategy or task. An
example of this approach would be role playing (Kangas, 2012).
41
The last approach utilizing the narrative format is the use of
autobiographies, defined as “stories about one’s self.” Formats can include
journals, logs, a written or verbal presentation, or blogs (Kitchakam, 2012). This
modality can utilize technology or not. If one chooses to use technology, the blog
format is the most utilized format if the subject matter can be disseminated
publically (or at least to the instructor and other students). The blog format has
become very popular in the social media world. Sites like Facebook©,
Myspace©, and others have become very much a part of most students’ lives
(and is not so age dependent as one might suspect). Instructors can create
class-specific pages whereby students can interact on either proscribed or non-
proscribed subjects. The author utilizes the non-proscribed approach where a
Facebook page is created that is focused on a given class. Students past and
present are encouraged to “like” the page and thus interact with others. The goal
is to create bridges between students in different parts of their career pipeline.
The author also “likes” sites within the Facebook page so students can utilize
them as resources for cases studies. Similar techniques can be applied to
MySpace and many others (Wang, Chun-Fu, & Wei-Cheih, 2012).
A more controlled form of the blog is the discussion question format where
students are assigned either as a class or by groups, a question or series of
questions. Students are able to see what their peers have presented, giving
them insight into how others might see the content. Discussion questions can
also require that students respond to some of their classmates, creating
interactions and reactions to what an individual presents. The discussion
42
question offers a unique, technologically based format for students to present
their views on a given subject to their peers, observe how those peers interpret
their information, and then reflect on that interaction, sometimes with responses
to the responses. The discussion question allows students to actively explore
the precepts of the information, reflect on its short-term and long-term meaning,
and integrate the knowledge into their own past experiences (Whitehouse, 2008).
The autobiography can also be accomplished using a non-technological
approach. For instance journaling allows students to document their thoughts
regularly so that they can use it for retrospection in the future. One can think of it
as an educational diary. Students can be assigned journal homework using
pencil and paper with the outcome goal of them either retaining the information
for their own use, submitting the information to the instructor for comment and
feedback, and/or presenting the material to their fellow classmates at a later
date. The approach selected should consider the subject content of the material
when deciding whether the contents are appropriate for which outcome (Clark &
Rossiter, 2002).
The historical lecture format is one where the lecturer presents information
(with or without the use of overheads, PowerPoints, or supplementary
information) with little student interaction (Karabulut, 2012). There is little
activation of the student’s brain in areas other than the lower cognitive zones.
Though this process may utilize some level of technology, it does not engage the
students sufficiently to produce the optimal learning environment. Contrary to
how many instructors intuitively feel about the use of lecture as a class format, it
43
can be an effective form of knowledge transfer so long as it provides current
research on the subject presented; information is integrated from a wide base of
resources, personal observations, or valid research; there is an element of
modeling and teaching of critical thinking skills within the curriculum; and it
engages students in a manner that motivates them and builds an intrinsic
passion for learning (either within or outside of the given field of study)
(Thompson, Bolin, & Coe, 2012).
The lecture format can be useful as a modality in a classroom
environment as long as it is integrated with other methodologies. For instance, if
an instructor utilizes a PowerPoint© embedded with videos, graphics, and
animations, and intersperses classroom activities at regular intervals, the lecture
transforms from a single direction monologue into an interactive multimodal
presentation. Taylor and Mariennau (1997) stated that, “knowledge is neither
given nor gotten, but constructed,” and that it should engage students to, “take
perspective of their own beliefs and realize that learning and development are
worthy life-long goals.” To accomplish this, the lecture has to engage the higher
cognitive areas of the brain and produce growth in critical thinking skills
(Thompson, Bolin, & Coe, 2012).
The final element of the multimodal classroom environment to consider is
the “flipped classroom.” In part due to the readily available technology, students
can now accomplish what used to be confined to the classroom, in their own
homes via the internet (Tucker, 2012). Students’ experience within the
classroom includes evaluation of scenarios, analysis of problems, and engaging
44
in collaborative learning. The flipped classroom allows the instructor to
maximally present and develop the more theoretical elements of the content, and
establishes opportunities for dialogue between students and the instructor as well
as between students and their classmates. The lectures are moved out of the
classroom and collaborate work, discussions, experimental exercises, debate,
and lab experiences are moved into the classroom. This approach facilitates
higher cognitive interactions in the classroom as well as perpetuating critical
thinking skills (Gerstein, 2012).
For the flipped classroom to be successful several elements must be
present. First of all the students need to be personally connected with the topic.
It must have emotional, social, and future scenario implications that are validated
by the student. The interactions within the classroom should be such that the
subject is personalized for each student through classroom collaborative
participation (Gerstein, 2012). Even in a multimodal classroom, lectures still
have a part in the process, but they should not be instituted until after the student
has explored the content on their own. This transforms the historical lecture into
an interactive collaborative review of the material. The flipped classroom is
supported by the National Center on Universal Design for Learning (2012) which
calls for instructors to apply multiple means of student engagement with multiple
means of presenting information. This affirmation was made after studies in
neurosciences showed that multimodal interactions activated the recognition,
strategic, and affective networks. This created an optimal learning experience
that facilitated long term memory and critical thinking skill growth so that the
45
knowledge gained could be applied by the learner in future diverse scenarios
(Fulton, 2012).
The standard flipped classroom moves the lecture, testing, and non-direct
learning elements out of the times when the class is assembled. The classroom
is used for student interactive activities, group projects, dialogue-based
experiences, and critical thinking skills opportunities. The basic reading, listening
to lectures, and monologue presentations are moved outside of the classroom.
Students are expected to come to class prepared so that they can take full
advantage of the higher level of learning (Strayer, 2012). If they do not come
prepared, they cannot fully collaborate because the content will not be familiar to
them. On the other hand, if they arrive with little preparation, the classroom
experience has the propensity to motivate them not to arrive ill prepared again,
and even then may help them better understand the material by observing and
interacting with the instructor and their peers (Tucker, 2012).
Multimodality in Anatomy and Physiology
Traditionally clinically focused anatomy and physiology curricula have
fallen into three models: the traditional regional format, the problem-based
format, and the systems-based format. The traditional format relies on a passive
learning, monologue-based paradigm where information is transferred from
instructor to student via a lecture-based and faculty-centered process. The
problem-based learning concept requires active learning on the part of the
student but has historically fallen short when students have attempted to apply
the knowledge presented in alternating and diverse clinical scenarios. Systems-
46
based curriculum is based on a 10 system breakdown whereby the anatomical
and physiological features are presented at the gross anatomical level, the
microscopic anatomical level, and the chemical or molecular level. Generally the
systems are broken down into cardiovascular, endocrine, digestive, urinary,
reproductive, respiratory, immune, skeletal, muscular, and nervous areas
(Heyling, 2002).
All of the traditional models have one consistent commonality: they
generally do not engage the student in the higher cognitive brain areas. The
result is that the information is poorly retained and not portable into other
subsequent clinical courses (McKeown et al., 2003). Students who successfully
pass the basic anatomy and physiology courses are often not able to apply the
principles and applications in subsequent clinically focused classes. Barrows
and Peters (1984) criticized the passive, lower cognitive approach taken by most
instructors when teaching basic sciences generally and anatomy and physiology
specifically. Since the 1990s medical education, to include anatomy and
physiology, has undergone massive transformation with penetration into
horizontal and vertical integration, student-centered approaches, and problem-
based learning concepts (Dornan & Bundy, 2004).
With the dynamic of increasing class sizes, advances in multimodal
presentation, and advances in technology, mono-modal approaches have
become less and less feasible. The use of computer-assisted learning has
become one of predictability but with serendipitous application and integration
(Trelease, 2002). In the anatomy and physiology classroom, the use of
47
anatomical informatics, three-dimensional modeling, and modeling using virtual
reality resources have become more readily available. However, though the
technology has increased exponentially, transitioning of the actual classroom
environment has occurred at a less substantial rate (Trelease & Rossett, 2008).
Presenting anatomy and physiology content requires a complicated
interwoven approach that includes text, graphics, anatomical models, histological
images and/or models, videos, and animations. To understand the human body
and its systems, students must be able to visualize and comprehend not only the
anatomical element being discussed, but how that element acts and reacts at the
basic chemical level, the microscopic level, and the gross anatomical level. To
accomplish that understanding, students must see the process in a multitude of
media and applications (Weir & Abrahams, 1997). For instance to understand
how the heart functions the student must not only know the anatomy of the heart
but in additional must understand how cardiac muscle functions at the chemical
and microscopic level, how the heart moves blood throughout its chambers, how
the pressures manage the movement of blood, how the electrical activation of the
heart causes specific components to contract in a systematic and comprehensive
sequence, and what the heart’s relationship is with other organ systems within
the body (Durosaro, Lachman & Pawlina, 2008).
For clinical career track students, anatomy and physiology is the
obligatory basic science that generates the scaffolding onto which all ensuing
clinically focused courses are connected. It is generally a required class that
must be accomplished in the preclinical years (Collins, 2008). A thorough
48
understanding of the normal anatomical and physiological functioning of the
human body is imperative when applying it to such subsequent courses as
pharmacology, pathophysiology, microbiology, and all clinically based laboratory
courses. It is crucial that students are not only able to retain the basic precepts
of anatomy and physiology but that they are also able to apply the knowledge in
a multitude of clinical scenarios (Sugand, Abrahams, & Khurana, 2010). To
maximize the student’s retention of the material, it is imperative that it be
integrated into the higher cognitive areas of the brain so that the basic precepts
and applications can be applied in a multitude of variations within specific
disease spectrums (Pabst, 2002). Even after graduation, the corollaries,
cognitive applications, and theoretical foundation learned in anatomy and
physiology courses are integral to the majority of clinical applications. Graduates
are expected to retain and rely on the knowledge gained from basic anatomy
throughout their careers (Moxham & Plaisant, 2007).
The anatomy and physiology classroom has undergone a significant
transformation, in part due to both the increasing costs of materials (cadavers,
reagents, and histological specimens) and the exponential growth and
sophistication of multimodal expansion (Sugand, Abrahams, & Khurana, 2010).
Human cadaver laboratories which are expensive and require the utilization of
toxigenic, teratogenic, and carcinogenic chemicals (formaldehyde, formalin, etc.)
are being substantially replaced with multimodal based experiences. Though the
cadaver experience is highly regarded by students, its use in contrast to other
49
modalities has not shown any significant or substantive improvement in the
quality or quantity of knowledge retained (Pawlina & Lachman, 2004).
The multimodal methodology has brought video, animation, web-based
laboratory experiences, email, and internet search-ability into the confines of the
traditional face-to-face anatomy and physiology classroom. The utilization of
computerized learning packages (anatomical informatics) has reduced the
dependency on cadaver experiences and actual laboratory requirements
(McNulty, Sonntag, & Sinacore, 2009). Web-based laboratory experiments have
begun to replace the traditional hands on experiences. Even the use of cadaver
labs have been replaced or significantly reduced by more dynamic modalities like
A.D.A.M.©, where the body can be dissected at every angle and any depth to
examine a given anatomical element in a multimodal computerized environment
(Putz & Pabst, 2002). Rudimentary lab experiences have been replaced by web-
based lab exercises that can be repeated without limitation until the student
understands the goals and objectives without the additional cost of traditional lab
exercises (Turney, 2007).
The application and benefits of integrating multimodal methodologies into
basic courses have been well documented (Airey & Linder, 2009; Jewitt & Kress,
2003; Kress, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis , 2001). The development of multimodal
textbooks and instructor resources has become the norm for all curriculums to
include basic sciences (anatomy & physiology, microbiology, biology, chemistry).
A few studies, as they apply more specifically to basic science classroom
environments, have focused on multimodal-based lectures and classroom
50
activities (Prain & Waldrip, 2006). These studies have looked at the dynamic
multimodal curricula and what is included in their multi-dimensional layering.
Even elements as basic as monologue lectures and chalkboards can represent
modes within the multiple alternatives. These varying modalities carry potentially
different meanings and different emphasis with subsequent different experiences
for the students (Jewitt & Kress, 2003).
It is the integration of diverse modalities as well as the multiplicity in how
they are applied that can determine how students absorb the information and
then integrate it into their higher cognitive learning areas (Roth & Lawless, 2002).
The ultimate output of the basic science classroom experience is a dynamically
layered event that includes the primary presentation mode (monologue or
dynamic dialogue lectures, video, animation, audio, chalkboard, whiteboard,
and/or Smartboard©), intra-layered by one or all of the following: textbook,
manner of speech, and classroom ideology (andragogy verses pedagogy) (Roth
& Lawless, 2002). Specifically, in the basic science classroom there are a variety
of signs, graphs, abbreviations, algorithms, pneumonics, etc. that are integral to
the curriculum content. These very specific elements often dictate the optimal
media by which the knowledge may be presented. Combinations of media,
sounds, visual images or videos, and collaboration create ideal knowledge
transfer (Finn & McLachlan, 2009).
51
Summary
The substantial advancement of technology in the professional and social
landscape, both internal and external to education, has driven student
expectations as to how curricula should be presented in both online and face-to-
face environments. Students have come to expect that the technology they
enjoy and utilize outside of the classroom will be integrated into the methodology
inside of the classroom. Unfortunately the integration of that technology into the
face-to-face classroom has occurred at a rate substantially slower than its rate of
development. The important question is, “what are the limiting factors that inhibit
multimodal applications?”
52
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
Chapter 3 presents the design, research methodology, and procedures
utilized to complete the study to determine the distribution and penetration of the
multimodal teaching methodology in anatomy and physiology curricula. It
includes a brief overview of the methods utilized to conduct a literature review,
the study’s purpose, the research questions that are inherent to the study, a
discussion of the research methodology, and the process that was employed to
collect and subsequently analyze the data to determine the study’s conclusions.
The researcher explored applicable foundational theoretical education
methodologies as well as the conceptual and operational aspects of multimodal
based learning. The writing guide for this dissertation was the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association, sixth edition (2009).
The literature for this review was collected from multiple sources:
professional journals, books, dissertations, electronic databases, and
governmental publications. References for this study were collected primarily
from the research databases available through the University of South Dakota’s
website and included: ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI), Social
Science Abstracts, ProQuest, and bibliographies presented in other publications
found within those databases. Internet searches were accomplished utilizing
Google.com®, Bing.com®, and Ask.com®. Search terms included multimodal
methodologies, multimodal applications, multimodal integration, and multimodal
applications.
53
The framework for the study was based on the significant learning
concepts presented by Fink (2003) depicting the optimal learning environment
through precognitive layering and integration of multimodal interactions. Fink has
been a long standing proponent of creating the student-centric, higher cognitive,
and student-valued educational interaction. Fink suggested that to be dynamic
learning must engage students within their higher cognitive brain tracks and that
those tracks are best stimulated through multimodal approaches that provide
mechanisms for learning that allow students to identify their own learning style,
and then engage the knowledge using that style. Fink defined the significant
learning experience as that event where the student is an active participant and
the knowledge attained creates a lasting and persistent change because it is
perceived as valuable by the student. The expectation is that students will
achieve better critical thinking skills, better interaction with their peers, and
become more engaged in the world around them (Hill, 2004).
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to identify the extent to which multimodal
teaching methodologies were used by instructors in anatomy and physiology
courses. The study identified how multimodal teaching elements were used by
instructors in anatomy and physiology classes, how much actual time was spent
in each modality, and how the multimodal elements were submitted by students.
The study identified instructors’ perceptions of barriers that prevented anatomy
and physiology instructors from integrating multimodal methodologies as they
related to training, facility infrastructure, and administration. The study analyzed
54
the variation in the integration of multimodal methodologies based on instructors’
personal characteristics.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. How do instructors integrate multimodal elements into anatomy and
physiology courses?
a. How much actual course time is spent in each modality?
b. How is each multimodal element integrated into the educational
experience?
c. How are multimodal elements submitted?
2. What are instructors’ perceptions of the barriers preventing them from
optimally engaging multimodal teaching methodologies as they relate
to:
a. Training
b. Facility/Infrastructure
c. Administration
3. What is the variation in the integration of multimodal methodologies
based on instructors’ personal characteristics?
Review of Selected Literature
A comprehensive review of related literature was conducted for the
purposes of this study. Multiple mechanisms were utilized creating a broad base
of information as it related to educational theory, multimodal methodology, and
multimodal application in basic science classrooms, specifically those involving
55
anatomy and physiology curricula. Literature sources included (a) electronic
indexes and databases, (b) professional journals, (c) books, (d) dissertations, (e)
governmental publications, and (f) conference proceedings. The references
utilized in this study were provided by the University of South Dakota’s website
(www.usd.edu/library) and included EBSCOhost, ERIC, Educational Abstracts,
Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI), ProQuest, Psychological Abstracts,
Social Science Abstracts, and bibliographies of the other publications found
through those specific databases. Additional internet searches were
accomplished utilizing Google.com©, Bing.com©, and Ask.com©. The primary
library facility employed was the I.D. Weeks Library at the University of South
Dakota in Vermillion.
The Publication Manual of The American Psychological Association (6th
edition) (2009) was used as a guide for clarity and consistency in the
development and writing of this proposal. Dr. Baron’s Dissertation Guide,
provided during his EDAD 885 Dissertation Seminar, and has been adopted as a
model for this proposal.
Population
The population studied included instructors from three anatomy and
physiology associations/societies. Though instructors from K-12 are members,
they were filtered from the study. The three population sources were
1. Human Anatomy and Physiology Society (HAPS) representing instructors
who teach in high schools, post-secondary education, or at two-year and
four-year year colleges and universities. The organization includes over
56
1,700 members, in over 300 institutions who teach anatomy and
physiology from educational institutions throughout the United States. It
should be noted that this study only included the instructors in higher
education and that high school instructors were excluded from the sample
studied, focusing only on members from higher education who taught in
two- and four-year colleges. The reason that the HAPS membership was
considered for the study sample was that the goals of the organization are
fundamentally supportive of advancements in anatomy and physiology
education. HAPS goals are to enhance the quality of anatomy and
physiology instruction at colleges and universities, promote
communication and collaboration among instructors of human anatomy
and physiology and encourage innovation, research, and publication by
human anatomy and physiology instructors.
2. iTeach Anatomy & Physiology Collaborate. This collaborate has a
membership of approximately 1,300 anatomy and physiology instructors
and is made up of a private community that provides college instructors
with discussion forums, teaching resources, current event feeds, shared
calendars, and a member community. iTeach has the following goals: (1)
bring together A&P instructors from multiple teaching institutions so that
they may exchange and discuss ideas related to A&P instruction, and (2)
create quality and innovation solutions to improve student learning
outcomes. iTeach was selected as a participating source for this study
57
because it represents instructors who are engaged in the advancement of
teaching methodologies in anatomy and physiology classrooms.
3. The American Physiology Society (APS) is a nonprofit organization
devoted to fostering education, scientific research, and dissemination of
information. The society was founded in 1887 with 28 members and has
grown to over 10,500 members, with most members having doctoral
degrees in physiology and/or medicine (for health professions). APS is a
member of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB), a coalition of 26 independent societies that play an active role in
lobbying for the interests of biological scientists. APS was selected as a
source for this study because of its longevity in supporting all aspects of
anatomy and physiology education and research.
Research Design
The choice to utilize a positivist/quantitative approach, a methodology
introduced in the modern world by Auguste Comte Giddens (1974), was because
it allowed the researcher to collect and then analyze the data based on numerical
representation of observations with the consequential intent to quantify the
phenomenon. Quantitative research, being both deductive and particularistic, is
based on the process of applying a research hypothesis, then verifying the
validity of that hypothesis through empirical manipulation of the acquired data
(Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1992). The importance of the quantitative
methodology is recognized as one of the most viable research approaches to
explain a given phenomenon (Pawson & Tilley, 1997).
58
Survey research is designed for quantitative descriptive studies and
allows researchers to define and describe patterns within the data from
respondents (Bridwell-Bowls, 1991). A survey by definition is cataloging a large
group (a population) of people to obtain a representative sample of the specificity
of the group as it applies to the subject being surveyed. The survey tool allows
the researcher to engage in an extensive analysis of a relatively large population
subset with a minimum of cost.
The survey tool included multiple choice questions, single answer, 0-100%
interpretations, and Likert scaled questions as well as demographic information
about the participant and the institution where he/she taught. The tool was
divided into five sections:
- Section A: Multimodal Elements Utilized by anatomy and
physiology instructors
o Questions one through six identified the level of multimodal
engagement in the instructor’s course for each multimodal
element.
Questions one and four were percentage-based.
Questions two, three, five, and six were multiple-choice
based.
- Section B: Institutional Demographics
o Questions seven and eight identified the type of higher learning
institution as well as the degree track of the students. They
were multiple-choice based.
59
- Section C: Infrastructure
o Question nine identified the availability of instructor computer
access, audio/visual support, and internet access for the
instructor and/or wireless access for the students. This question
was percentage-based.
- Section D: Administrative Support
o Questions 10 through 14 identified the instructor’s perception of
how their administration supported multimodal teaching. These
questions were Likert-based.
- Section E: Faculty Information
o Questions 15 through 21 established the teaching status, total
years of teaching overall, years of teaching anatomy and
physiology specifically, degrees earned, and curricula levels
taught (undergraduate, masters, or doctorate).
Questions 15 and 16 were percentage-based.
Questions 17 through 21 were demographic-based.
o Questions 22 and 23 establish the participant’s perception of the
quantity and quality of his/her training. These questions were
Likert-based.
The researcher submitted the survey cover letter (Appendix C) to the
HAPS, iTeach, and APS list serves. Though the membership included both
instructors of higher learning and high school instructors, all high school
instructors were filtered from the data received to specifically focus the study on
60
instructors in higher learning teaching. The subset studied therefore only
included instructors from two-year and four-year university institutions.
Instrumentation
The instrument (Appendix A) used for this study was created by the
researcher based on evidence found in the literature (Appendix B). Research
design was guided by John Creswell’s (2003), Research Design, Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Instructors were directed to
complete the questions on a web-based survey tool (Survey Monkey©).
Because the survey tool had not been employed in this format prior to this study,
it was distributed among the University of South Dakota anatomy and physiology
instructors first (six individuals) for a formal critique. Upon completion of the
formal critique, appropriate corrections were made and the tool was then sent out
a second time to 10 members of the Sanford School of Medicine and the original
six individuals who performed the original critique (total of 16 individuals) who
took the survey and offered specific feedback. Their suggestions were integrated
into the final survey tool.
Once the tool was validated through the critique and survey evaluation
process, it was submitted to the members of HAPS, iTeach, and APS. The items
in the survey tool were mapped in a matrix that provided content validity by
connecting the survey items to the corresponding literature research and the
stated research questions (Appendix B). The survey tool included multiple
choice questions and Likert scaled items. The validity and statistical relevance of
61
the Likert scale methodology was well-established (Allen & Seaman, 2007). All
variables were analyzed for reliability. The Cronbach’s Alpha result was 0.76.
Data Collection
Approval to conduct this study was requested and approved from the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of South Dakota prior to
implementation. Data were collected over a 30-day period via an online, web-
based survey mechanism (Survey Monkey©). An online email through the
HAPS, iTeach, and APS list serves was submitted to the potential participants
explaining the reason for the survey and its value to improving the overall quality
of anatomy and physiology curricula. The email also included the study’s title,
purpose, description, risks, benefits, alternatives, confidentiality, a statement of
implied consent, and the researcher’s name and contact information with a link to
the actual survey.
Data Analysis
The researcher used the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) 20 to complete the statistical analyses. A significance level of p<.05 was
used for these analyses. Inferential and descriptive statistics were conducted on
the quantitative data. Results were analyzed as they applied to the total study
subset as well as each type of participant group represented within the study.
The goal was to evaluate any and all trends within those variables.
Research Question 1 regarding the integration of multimodal teaching
elements (total time spent on each, how they were integrated, and how they were
62
submitted) used in anatomy and physiology classes was determined by
calculating the means and standard deviations for survey items 1 through 6.
Research Question 2 regarding instructors’ perceptions of barriers that
prevented them from integrating multimodal methodologies as they related to
training, facility infrastructure, and administration was determined by calculating
the means and standard deviations for survey items 9, 10 - 14, 22, and 23.
Research Questions 3 regarding the integration of multimodal
methodologies based on variations as they apply to the instructor was
determined by calculating the means, standard deviation, and ANOVA for survey
items 15 – 21. All significant ANOVA were followed up with a post hoc Tukey’s
Test. The independent variables included number of years of teaching
experience, numbers of years of teaching specifically anatomy and physiology,
the instructors’ highest degree earned, teaching status, and teaching rank. The
independent variable were the 12 modes of multimodality.
63
CHAPTER 4
Findings
Chapter 4 presents the findings of analysis of the data gathered for the
study. The purpose of the study is revisited, followed by the survey response
rate and demographics data. The study results are then presented in tabular
format with accompanying narratives to explain the statistical processes used.
The IBM SPSS 9 (Version 20.0) software package was used for all statistical
analysis.
The problem addressed in this study was to identify the extent to which
multimodal teaching methodologies were used by instructors in anatomy and
physiology courses. The study identified how multimodal teaching elements
were used by instructors in anatomy and physiology classes, how much actual
time was spent in each modality, and how the multimodal elements were
submitted by students. The study identified instructors’ perceptions of barriers
that prevented anatomy and physiology instructors from integrating multimodal
methodologies as they related to training, facility infrastructure, and
administration. The study analyzed the variation in the integration of multimodal
methodologies based on instructors’ personal characteristics.
The following questions guided the study:
1. How do instructors integrate multimodal elements into anatomy and
physiology courses?
a. How much actual course time is spent in each modality?
64
b. How is each multimodal element integrated into the educational
experience?
c. How are multimodal elements submitted?
2. What are instructors’ perceptions of the barriers preventing them from
optimally engaging multimodal teaching methodologies as they relate
to:
a. Training
b. Facility/Infrastructure
c. Administration
3. What is the variation in the integration of multimodal methodologies
based on instructors’ personal characteristics?
Response Rate
The target population studied included anatomy and physiology instructors
from three associations/societies. Though K-12 teachers were members, they
were filtered out from the study. The three groups studied were Human Anatomy
and Physiology Society (HAPS), iTeach Anatomy & Physiology Collaborate, and
The American Physiology Society (APS).
The three associations/societies totaled memberships of over 13,500
anatomy and physiology instructors. Only members who participated in their
respective organization’s list serves were surveyed. This resulted in an
estimated study population of approximately 3,675. A total of 181 instructors
responded to the survey for a return rate of 4.93%. Not all instructors answered
every question.
65
Demographic Data
Instructor demographics included the following specifics: highest degree
earned, teaching status, teaching rank, the percent that each individual taught
anatomy and physiology, total years teaching, and total years teaching anatomy
and physiology, specifically. Of those instructors who answered the question
asking their highest degree earned, two (1.1%) had bachelors, 34 (19.3%) had
master’s, and 140 (79.6%) had doctorates (see Table 1).
Table 1
Differences in Highest Degree Earned
Degree f Valid Percent
Bachelors 2 1.1
Masters 34 19.3
Doctorate 140 79.6
Total 176 100.0
Instructors were queried concerning their teaching status as it applied to
tenured, contracted, or adjunct. Of those instructors who answered teaching
status, 95 (55.9%) were full-time tenured, five (2.94%) were part-time tenured, 57
(33.5%) were full-time contracted, four (2.3%) were part-time contracted, and
nine (5.3%) were adjunct (see Table 2).
66
Table 2
Differences in Teaching Status
Status f Valid Percent
Full-time Tenured 95 55.9
Full-time Contracted 57 33.5
Adjunct 9 5.3
Part-time Tenured 5 2.9
Part-time Contracted 4 2.4
Total 170 100.0
Instructors were queried as to their teaching rank. Choices were instructor,
assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor. Of those instructors
that answered teaching rank, 32 (19.1%) were instructors, 40 (23.8%) were
assistant professors, 34 (20.2%) were associate professors, and 62 (36.9%)
were full professors (see Table 3).
67
Table 3
Differences in Teaching Rank
Rank f Valid Percent
Instructor 32 19.1
Assistant Professor 40 23.8
Associate Professor 34 20.2
Professor 62 36.9
Total 168 100.0
Instructors were queried as to what percentage of their teaching assignments
was directly related to anatomy and physiology. Of those instructors that
answered the percent of their teaching assignments that were anatomy and
physiology classes, three (1.7%) were less than 10%, six (3.4%) were 20%, 12
(6.8%) were 30%, eight (4.5%) were 40%, 20 (11.3%) were at 50%, 14 (7.9%)
were at 60%, 24 (14.0%) were at 70%, 23 (13.9%) were at 80%, 13 (7.3%) were
at 90%, and 54 (30.5%) were at 100% (See Table 4).
68
Table 4
Differences in Teaching Assignments in Anatomy and Physiology
Percent of Assignments f Valid Percent
10 3 1.7
20 6 3.4
30 12 6.8
40 8 4.2
50 20 11.3
60 14 7.9
70 24 14.0
80 23 13.0
90 13 7.3
100 54 30.1
Total 177 100.0
Instructors were queried as to their total years of teaching experience. Of the
instructors that answered total years of teaching, two (1.1%) answered less than
one year, 18 (10.1%) answered one to five years, 34 (19.1%) answered six to 10
years, 27 (15.2%) answered 10 to15 years, 29 (16.3%) answered 15 to 20 years,
and 68 (38.2%) answered greater than 20 years (see Table 5).
69
Table 5
Differences in Total Years of Teaching Experience
Years f Valid Percent
<1 2 1.1
1-5 28 10.1
6-10 34 19.1
10-15 27 15.2
15-20 29 16.3
>20 68 38.2
Total 178 100.0
Of the instructors that answered total years of teaching in anatomy and
physiology specifically, three (1.7%) answered less than one year, 34 (19.1%)
answered one to five years, 30 (16.9%) answered six to 10 years, 22 (12.4%)
answered 10 to15 years, 28 (15.8%) answered 15 to 20 years, and 61 (34.3%)
answered greater than 20 years (see Table 6).
70
Table 6
Differences in Total Years of Teaching Experience in Anatomy and Physiology
Years f Valid Percent
<1 3 1.7
1-5 34 19.1
6-10 30 16.9
10-15 22 12.4
15-20 28 16.7
>20 61 34.3
Total 178 100.0
Findings
Responses to each research question are presented separately. Coupled
reliability is calculated via Cronbach’s Alpha (0.76). As these reliability data
suggested that items could be combined to form scales, an analysis between
groups was done. The means were compared using one-way analyses of
variance (ANOVA). Results are presented in the narrative and table form for the
significant findings. More results can be found in table format in Appendix D.
How instructor integrated multimodal elements into anatomy and
physiology courses. This area was broken down into three sub-categories:
how much time instructors spent in each modality, how instructors integrated
71
each modality into the educational experience, and how multimodal elements
were submitted for grading. The first sub-category queried instructors about how
much time was spent with each multimodal element. Instructors were asked to
estimate what part of their overall student interaction time was spent in each
mode. Instructors could select 0-20% (1), 21-40% (2), 41-60% (3), 61-80% (4),
or 81-100% (5) for each mode (See Table 7). Lecture had the highest frequency
at 61- 80% (n = 178, M = 3.40, SD = 1.11). In-class lab had the second highest
frequency at 41–60% (n = 164, M = 2.12, SD = 1.12). The remaining 12 modes
were used only 21–40% of the time.
72
Table 7
Differences in Time Spent In Each Mode
Mode n M SD
Lecture 178 3.40 1.11
In-Class Labs 164 2.12 1.12
Video/Animations 161 1.76 0.97
Discussion Questions 158 1.69 0.88
Email 146 1.55 1.03
Case Studies 163 1.52 0.76
Cadaver Experiences 146 1.40 1.00
Computer Simulations 148 1.34 0.68
Student Presentations 144 1.32 0.69
In-Class Polling 146 1.30 0.59
Web-Based Lab Experiences 146 1.20 0.57
In-class Texting 137 1.04 0.31
Social Media Experiences 138 1.04 0.22
Public Blogging 138 1.04 0.28
The second subcategory queried instructors about how they integrated
multimodal elements into the educational experience. Instructors were asked to
identify if each mode was not used, completed in-class as an individual
73
experience, completed in-class as a group experience, completed out of class as
an individual experience, or completed out of class as a group experience (See
Table 8). The most common out-of-class individual modality selected was email
(40.23%, f=35). However 35.63% (f=31) of the instructors responded not used.
The most common out-of-class group modality selected was also email (14.94%,
f=13). The most common in-class group modality selected was lecture (75.26%,
f=73), which was also the second highest in-class individual modality (18.56%,
f=18). The most common in-class individual modality selected was class polling
mechanisms (25.58%, f= 22). Modalities that were identified as not used greater
than seventy-five percent of the time included: social media (88.24%, f=75),
public blog (96.43%, f=81), and in-class texting (95.40%, f=83).
74
Table 8
Differences in Integration of Multimodal Elements into the Class Experience
Mode Not Used In-Class Individual
In-Class Group
Out-of- class Individual
Out-of- class Group
N
Lecture 2.06%
f=2 18.56%
f=18 75.26%
f=73 4.12%
f=4 0.00%
f=0
97
Video/ animations
14.74% f=14
10.53% f=10
45.26% f=43
28.42% f=27
1.05% f=1
95
Discussion question
19.15% f=18
5.32% f=5
63.83% f=60
8.51% f=8
3.19% f=3
94
In-Class lab experiences
21.28% f=20
9.57% f=9
69.15% f=65
0.00% f=0
0.00% f=0
94
Case Study
30.53% f=29
2.11% f=2
50.53% f=48
13.68% f=13
3.16% f=3
95
35.63% f=31
9.20% f=8
0.00% f=0
40.23% f=35
14.94% f=13
87
Simulation (computer or mannequin)
50.55% f=46
3.30% f=3
26.37% f=24
17.58% f=16
2.20% f=2
91
Web-based Lab experiences
57.95% f=51
1.14% f=1
12.50% f=11
27.27% f=24
1.14% f=1
88
Class Polling Mechanisms
59.30% f=51
25.58% f=22
10.47% f=9
4.65% f=4
0.00% f=0
86
Student Presentations
62.79% f=54
3.49% f=3
32.56% f=28
1.16% f=1
0.00% f=0
86
Cadaver
73.03% f=65
3.37% f=3
22.47% f=20
1.12% f=1
0.00% f=0
89
Social Media
88.24% f=75
0.00% f=0
2.35% f=2
8.24% f=7
1.18% f=1
85
75
Mode Not Used In-Class Individual
In-Class Group
Out-of- class Individual
Out-of- class Group
N
Public Blog
96.43% f=81
0.00% f=0
0.00% f=0
2.38% f=2
1.19% f=1
84
In Class Texting
95.40% f=83
2.30% f=2
1.15% f=1
1.15% f=1
0.00% f=0
87
The third sub-category queried instructors about how instructors had
students submit their multimedia experiences. Instructors were asked to identify
if each mode was not used, presented to the entire class, presented to a sub-
group of the class, or turned into the instructor only without any other action (See
Table 9). The highest mode presented in-class was the discussion question
(55.32%, f=52), with case studies second (31.25%, f=30). Modes not used a
majority of the time included social media interaction (89.66%, f=78) and public
blog (96.55%, f=84).
76
Table 9
Differences in How Students Were Instructed to Submit Multimodal Elements
Mode Not
Used Presented
in class Presented to a group
Turned into the
instructor N
Discussion question 21.28% f=20
55.32% f=52
12.77% f=12
10.64% f=10
94
Case Study 32.29% f=31
31.25% f=30
10.42% f=10
26.04% f=25
96
Web-based Lab experiences
59.09% f=52
6.82% f=6
6.82% f=6
27.27% f=24
88
Social Media Interaction 89.66% f=78
3.45% f=3
3.45% f=3
3.45% f=3
87
Public Blog 96.55% f=84
3.45% f=3
0.00% f=0
0.00% f=0
87
Instructors’ perceptions of the causes preventing them from
optimally engaging in multimodal teaching methodologies. This area was
broken down into three sub-categories: the quality and quantity of training,
limitations in the teaching facility, and support provided by the institution’s
administration. The first sub-category queried instructors whether the quality and
quantity of training was sufficient. Instructors could respond that they strongly
disagreed, agreed, were neutral, agreed, or strongly agreed (See Table 10). The
instructors’ results indicated that they were generally neutral as to whether the
amount of training was sufficient (n = 175, M = 2.85, SD = 1.03). Responses by
77
percentage were: strongly agree (6.25%), disagree (34.38%), neutral (23.96%),
agree (30.21%), and strongly agree (5.21%). The instructors’ results indicated
that they were generally neutral as to whether the quality of the training was
sufficient (n = 176, M = 2.97, SD = 0.99). Responses by percentage were
strongly agree (5.21%), disagree (31.25%), neutral (29.17%), agree (31.25%),
and strongly agree (3.13%).
Table 10
Instructor Perceptions of Training Quality and Quantity
Training N M SD
Training Quality 176 2.97 0.99
Training Quantity 175 2.85 1.03
The second sub-category queried instructors to estimate the amount of
time that selected technologies were available to them in the classroom.
Selected technologies included: instructor internet access, computer access,
multimedia projector availability, student wireless internet access, audiovisual
access. Instructors could select 0% (1), 25% (2), 50% (3), 75% (4), and 100%
(5) (See Table 11). If the answer was “never” instructors were instructed to
answer 0% and if the answer was “always” instructors were instructed to answer
78
100%. Instructors reported that all technologies were available in the classroom
most of the time with all means above 4.76 (75–100%).
Table 11
Time that Technologies Were Available In the Classroom
Technologies N M SD
Instructor Internet Access 176 4.86 0.61
Computer Access 177 4.84 0.63
Multimedia Projector Availability 176 4.80 0.68
Student Wireless Internet Access 176 4.78 0.70
Audiovisual Access 175 4.76 0.69
The third sub-category queried instructors to identify their perception of
how their institution’s administration supported them in integrating multimodal
methodologies into their curriculum. Instructors could select strongly disagree
(1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4), or strongly agree (5) (See Table 12).
Instructors reported that they generally strongly agreed that their administration
understood the benefits of multimodal methodologies (n = 175, M = 4.84, SD =
0.94) and supported new technologies (n = 177, M = 4.25, SD = 0.80).
79
Table 12
Instructor’s Perception of the Administration Support
Administration n M SD
Benefits of Multimodal Methodologies 175 4.84 0.94
Supports New Technology 177 4.25 0.80
Budget Limitations 177 4.02 0.84
Facility Limitations 177 3.44 1.12
Supports Faculty 173 2.99 1.19
Variations in the integration of multimodal methodologies based on
instructor’s characteristics. The integration of multimodal methodologies was
based on specific instructor characteristics. The characteristics analyzed were
percent of teaching assignment in anatomy and physiology, years of teaching,
years of teaching anatomy and physiology, instructor’s highest degree, teaching
status, and instructor’s rank. The first instructor characteristic analyzed was the
difference in the instructor’s percent of teaching assignment specifically in
anatomy and physiology and the multimodal elements. Instructors were given
the choices of 0% (1), 10% (2), 20% (3), 30% (4), 40% (5), 50% (6), 60% (7),
70% (8), 80% (9), 90% (10), and 100% (11). Instructors percentages were
assembled into quartiles for the one way ANOVA; 0–40% (1), 50–70% (2), 80-
90% (3), and greater than 90% (4). There was no significant difference in the
80
modes that instructors used based on the percentage of their teaching
assignments in anatomy and physiology. The ANOVA did find a significance
difference in the use of in-class texting but the post hoc analysis did not support
it. The individual results are located in the Appendix D.
The second instructor characteristic analyzed was the differences in the
total years the instructor had been teaching and the multimodal elements.
Instructors were given the choices of less than one year (1), one to five years (2),
six to 10 years (3), 11 to 15 years (4), 16 to 20 years (5), and greater than 20
years (6). Instructor’s responses were assembled into quartiles for the one way
ANOVA. Groups were established as follows: one through 9 years (Group 1), 10
through 20 years (Group 2), and greater than 20 (Group 3). There was no
significant difference in the modes that instructors used based on the number of
years instructors had been teaching. The individual results are located in the
Appendix D.
The third instructor characteristic analyzed the differences between the
total years the instructor had been teaching anatomy and physiology and the
multimodal elements. Instructors were given the choices of less than one year
(1), one to five years (2), six to 10 years (3), 11 to 15 years (4), 16 to 20 years
(5), and greater than 20 years (6). Instructor’s responses were assembled into
quartiles for the one way ANOVA. Groups were established as follows: one
through 10 years (Group 1) (n = 66), 11 through 20 years (Group 2) (n = 50), and
greater than 20 (Group 3) (n = 61). There were two significant differences based
on the total years of teaching anatomy and physiology. The first significant
81
difference (df = (2, 155), F= 3.246, p = 0.042) based on years of teaching
anatomy and physiology was that instructors with 21 years or longer teaching
anatomy and physiology were less likely to use video or animations (M = 1.48) in
their classroom when compared to instructors who taught one to 10 years (M = 1.
93) and instructors who taught 11 to 20 years (M = 1.79). The second significant
difference (df = (2, 140), F = 4.784, p = 0.010) based on years of teaching
anatomy and physiology was that instructors with 11 to 20 years of teaching
anatomy and physiology were more likely to include the cadaver experience in
their classroom (M = 1.79) when compared to instructors who had taught one to
10 years (M = 1.19) and instructors who taught greater 21 years or greater (M =
1.30). The individual results are located in the Appendix D.
Table 13
Significant Differences in Total Years Teaching In Anatomy and Physiology
Mode Quartile N M SD
Cadaver Experience
1.00 54 1.192,3 0.68
2.00 42 1.791 1.37
3.00 47 1.301 0.86
Video animation
1.00 61 1.933 1.06
2.00 47 1.793 1.04
3.00 50 1.481,2 0.65
Note. 1one to 10 years; 211 to 20 years; 321 years or greater.
82
Table 14 Analysis of Significant Differences in Total Years Teaching In Anatomy and Physiology
Mode df F p
Cadaver
Experience
Between Groups 2 4.784 .010
Within Groups 140
Video
Animation
Between Groups 2 3.246 .042
Within Groups 155
Note: significant at p<0.5
The fourth instructor characteristic analyzed was based on instructors’
highest degree earned and the multimodal elements. Instructors were given the
choice of: associates degree (1), bachelor’s degree (2), master’s degree (3), and
doctoral degree (4). No instructor chose associates degree as an option in the
study so it was removed from the analysis. There were two significant
differences based on the instructor’s highest degree earned. The first significant
difference (df = (2, 155), F = 3.395, p = 0.036) based on the instructor’s highest
earned degree and multimodal elements was that instructors with doctoral
degrees (M = 1.65) were less likely to use video or animations in their
classrooms when compared to instructors with bachelor’s (M = 2.50) or master’s
(M = 2.10) degrees. The second significant difference (df = (2, 170), F = 3.522, p
= 0.032) based on the instructor’s highest earned degree and multimodal
83
elements was that instructors with bachelor’s degrees (M = 1.50) were less likely
to use lecture in their classrooms when compared to instructors with master’s (M
= 3.25) or doctorate (M = 3.45) degrees. The individual results in tables 19 and
20 are located in the Appendix D.
Table 15
Significant Differences in Highest Degree Earned
Mode Degree N M SD
Video animation
Bachelors 2 2.50d 2.12 Masters 30 2.10d 1.06 Doctorate 126 1.65b,m 0.90
Lecture Bachelors 2 1.50m,d 0.71 Masters 32 3.25b 1.08 Doctorate 139 3.45b 1.09
Note. bBachelors; mMasters; dDoctorate.
84
Table 16 Analysis of Significant Differences in Highest Degree Earned
Mode df F Sig. = p
Video
Animation
Between Groups 2 3.395 .036
Within Groups 155
Lecture Between Groups 2 3.522 .032
Within Groups 170
Note: significant at p<0.5
The fifth instructor characteristic analyzed was the relationship between
the teaching status and the multimodal elements. Instructors were given the
choice of full-time tenured (1), part-time tenured (2), full-time contract (3), part-
time contract (4), and adjunct (5). There were no responses to the part-time
tenured choice so it was eliminated from the analysis. The only significant
difference (df = (3, 132), F = 2.913, p = 0.037) based on the instructor’s teaching
status and multimodal elements was that instructors who are full-time contract (M
= 1.87) or full-time tenured (M = 1.40) were more likely to use email when
compared to instructors who are part-time contract (M = 1.25) or adjunct (1.00).
The individual results are located in the Appendix D.
85
Table 17
Significant Differences in Teaching Status
Mode Status N M SD
Full Tim Tenured 80 1.403,4 0.82 Full-time Contract 47 1.873,4 1.28 Part-time Contract 4 1.251,2 0.50 Adjunct 5 1.001,2 0.00
Note. 1Full-time Tenured; 2Full-time Contract; 3Part-time Contract; 4Adjunct. Table 18 Analysis of Significant Differences in Teaching Status
Mode df F Sig. = p
Email Between Groups 3 2.913 0.037
Within Groups 132
Note: significant at p<0.5
The sixth instructor characteristic analyzed was the relationship between
the instructor’s rank and the multimodal elements. Instructors were given the
choice of instructor (1), assistant professor (2), associate professor (3), and
professor (4). There was no significant difference in the modes that instructors
86
used based on the instructor’s rank and the multimodal elements. The individual
results are located in the Appendix D.
Summary
Chapter 4 presented the findings of the study. All instructor variables
were analyzed against their relationship with each multimodal element. Chapter
5 presents a summary of the study as well as the conclusion and
recommendations.
87
CHAPTER 5
Summary, Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations
Chapter 5 includes a summary of the study, conclusions, discussion, and
recommendations based on the study. The first section is a summary that
includes the purpose of the study, research questions, brief review of literature,
methodology, and the significant findings. Conclusions, discussion, and
implications for practice as well as future research comprise the remainder of this
chapter.
Summary
Purpose of the study. The purpose of this study was to identify the
extent that multimodal teaching methodologies were used by instructors in
anatomy and physiology courses. The study identified how multimodal teaching
elements were used by instructors in anatomy and physiology classes, how
much actual time was spent in each modality, and how the multimodal elements
were submitted by students. The study identified instructors’ perceptions of the
barriers preventing them from optimally engaging multimodal teaching
methodologies as they related to training, facility infrastructure, and
administration. The study analyzed the variation in the integration of multimodal
methodologies based on the instructor’s personal characteristics.
Research questions. This study was guided by the following research
questions:
1. How do instructors integrate multimodal elements into anatomy and
physiology courses?
88
a. How much actual course time is spent in each modality?
b. How is each multimodal element integrated into the educational
experience?
c. How are multimodal elements submitted?
2. What are instructors’ perceptions of the barriers preventing them from
optimally engaging multimodal teaching methodologies as they relate
to:
a. Training
b. Facility/Infrastructure
c. Administration
d. Administration
3. What is the variation in the integration of multimodal methodologies
based on instructors’ personal characteristics?
Review of literature. Multimodality is the theory of communication as it
applies to social and educational semiotics (making meaning through the use of
multiple signs and symbols). The term multimodality describes a communication
methodology that includes multiple textual, aural, and visual applications (modes)
that are woven together to create what is referred to as an artifact. The
multimodal artifact is a collection of modes that prescribe how the audience will
interpret the information or concept. Multimodal teaching methodology attempts
to create a deeper meaning to course content by activating the higher cognitive
areas of the student’s brain, creating a more sustained retention of the
information (Murray, 2009).
89
Fink (2003) established that learning must include dynamic interactions
between students and instructors, between the students themselves, and
between students and the knowledge. The information must create a bridge
between the student’s past experiences, emotions, and beliefs, and their future
where they will need to apply the knowledge. Pratt and Malabar (1998) identified
seven major principles that support that learning must be built on past knowledge
or emotion to ensure retention. They also suggested that the linkage between
the student’s past and present knowledge is in itself as important as the
information. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) identified three doctrines that
facilitate student learning with consideration to linking their past with their future.
Instructors must understand that each student has a unique mix of past
experiences and expectations for the application of future knowledge. To
successfully achieve deep understanding, students must be given more than
objective data. They must be given the relevancy of the information and how it
will be useful at a later time. Finally, students must be able to develop their own
metacognitive strategies so that the knowledge can be used in future significant
scenarios.
Scholars agree that the multimodal classroom experience results in
higher student comprehension over older, less technologically advanced
methods. Neurological studies have consistently shown activity in higher
cognitive brain areas with multimodal approaches that is not present in
monologue lecture-based approaches (Lanham, 2004). Neurologists have
traced specific connections being activated between multiple areas of the brain’s
90
higher cognitive areas with multimodal approaches (Murray, 2009).
Comparisons of student outcomes between traditional modalities and new
technological multimodalities have been explored but the actual distribution and
penetration of multimodal concepts into course curricula is not present in
available literature, specifically in basic science courses supporting clinical career
tracts (Shipka, 2005).
Advances in technology have primarily driven the rapid growth rate of
online classroom delivery, and created a secondary student expectation for
similar experiences in the face-to-face and hybrid environments. The integration
of multimodal delivery is less and less limited by the available technology and
more and more by the willingness of the instructor to utilize it (Ball & Moeller,
2010). The result is that expansion of multimodal penetration into the traditional
classroom has not met student expectations (Bolter & Grusin, 2000).
Students have come to expect that classroom curricula and the actual
delivery of knowledge will integrate the level and types of technologies that they
experience in their normal daily out of classroom lives. Students want to
incorporate smart phones, social media, and web-based experiences into the
learning process (Wang, Chun-Fu, & Wei-Cheih, 2012). Students have come to
expect the course content be more suited to their needs and delivered in a
manner that best engages their learning styles. Students perceive that learning
is disjointed, fragmented, and without continuity between one course and other.
This creates an environment where students perceive themselves as isolated,
depressed, and without attachment to the learning process (Gouge, 2009).
91
Creation and application of multimodal educational experiences creates a
multifaceted learning approach that engages the higher cognitive areas of the
brain and is applicable to almost all learning styles, resulting in greater retention
of the information. Unique student characteristics do not limit knowledge transfer
(Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Charalampos, 2006). Engaging students at their higher
as well as their lower cognitive brain function is essential in creating optimal
learning and retention that is portable to other life and professional scenarios
(Bland, Saunders, Kreps-Frish, 2007).
The factors that limit the integration of multimodal delivery categorically fall
into three main areas. The first deals with faculty development. Academia has
not customarily moved as quickly as technology when it comes to its application
in the classroom. Recent research on multimodal methodologies has only begun
to create an alternative paradigm with instructors who teach higher learning
courses (Picciano, 2011). Traditionally instructors as a whole have been less
than willing to become early adaptors when new methodologies are available,
especially when the new elements are strikingly dissimilar to the approaches that
have been practiced in the past (Davis & Shadle, 2007). This is problematic in
clinical career tracts where instructors who teach subsequent courses and are
expecting students to be well versed in the basic sciences have complained
repeatedly that students are not able to apply the knowledge learned in their
basic courses in subsequent clinically focused scenarios (Murray, 2009).
Tangentially instructors’ training in the new multimodal, technological demanding
92
methodologies has generally been perceived as poor quality, poor quantity, or
non-existent in the majority of cases (Anderson, 2006).
The second area affecting the speed of integration of multimodal
methodologies into course curricula is that of infrastructure limitations in the
teaching facility so they can utilize the new technology. Often upgrades have
large dollar costs that must compete with other demands within the institution as
well as multi-year maintenance contracts that require expensive upkeep of
software and hardware (Devoss, Cushman, & Grabill, 2005). Universities have
traditionally been reluctant to incur the additional costs of creating online access
and full multimodal capability in-classrooms. Incorporating internet access, high-
level video and telephone conferencing, and graphic applications is extremely
expensive (Lanham, 2004).
The third and final area, inhibiting expansion of multimodal applications
from being incorporated into course curricula, is the difference between what the
instructors perceive is necessary and what the administration perceives is
reasonable. The upfront costs of upgrading facilities so that new technologies
can be utilized is significant and often does not compete well with other
budgetary demands because administration may not comprehend how the
improvements can result in improved student outcomes (Bolter & Grusin, 2000).
It is also difficult to apply a true dollar value to long-term, far-reaching student
achievements in higher cognitive retention and improved critical thinking skills
(Lahham, 2004).
93
Methodology. A descriptive survey research design was used for the
study. After IRB approval was obtained, an electronic survey mechanism was
created that allowed the researcher to distribute a survey link to potential
participants. A copy of survey was sent out to members of the University of
South Dakota (USD) Basic Biomedical Sciences Division who taught anatomy
and physiology for critique. Once suggestions/criticisms were received from the
critique, a revamped survey was sent out to faculty members of the Sanford
School of Medicine and instructors in the USD Basic Biomedical Sciences
Department utilizing an electronic link. The survey was again revamped in
response to suggestions from the participants. The link was then sent to
members of three societies/associations made up of faculty members who taught
anatomy and physiology through each organization’s list serve. Though there
were members in the sample population who taught only at the high school level,
only members who taught in two or four year colleges were included the study.
The instrument (Appendix A) used for the study was created by the
researcher based on evidence found in the literature. Survey elements were
mapped to a matrix that provided content validity by connecting the survey
questions to the corresponding literature and research (See Appendix B). The
survey tool included multiple choice, single answer, 0-100% selections, Likert
scaled questions, and demographic information. The tool was divided into five
sections: (A) Multimodal Elements Utilized by Anatomy and Physiology
Instructors, (B) Institutional Demographics, (C) Infrastructure, (D) Administrative
Support, and (E) Faculty Information.
94
Descriptive statistics were used on the quantitative data. The penetration
and dispersion of multimodality teaching elements used in anatomy and
physiology courses were analyzed by calculating frequencies, percentages,
means, and standard deviations. Analysis of variables that potentially facilitated
or inhibited the distribution of those multimodal elements was performed by
calculating frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, and ANOVAs.
Findings. The following are the significant findings compiled from the survey
distributed via Survey Monkey (Appendix A) to three groups: Human Anatomy
and Physiology Society (HAPS), iTeach Anatomy & Physiology Collaborate, and
The American Physiology Society (APS).
1. Instructors were asked to estimate what part of their overall student
interaction time was spent in each mode. Lecture had the highest
frequency at 61-80% (n = 178, M = 3.40, SD = 1.11). In-class lab had the
second highest frequency at 41–60% (n = 164, M = 2.12, SD = 1.12). The
remaining 12 modes were used only 21–40% of the time.
2. Instructors were asked to identify if each mode was not used, completed
in-class as an individual experience, completed in-class as a group
experience, completed out of class as an individual experience, or
completed out of class as a group experience. The most common out-of-
class individual modality selected was email (40.23%, f=35). However
35.63% (f=31) of the instructors responded not used. The most common
out-of-class group modality selected was also email (14.94%, f=13). The
most common in-class group modality selected was lecture (75.26%,
95
f=73), which was also the second highest in-class individual modality
(18.56%, f=18). The most common in-class individual modality selected
was class polling mechanisms (25.58%, f= 22). Modalities that were
identified as not used greater than 75% of the time included social media
(88.24%, f=75), public blog (96.43%, f=81), and in-class texting (95.40%,
f=83).
3. Instructors were asked how they had students submit their multimedia
experiences. The highest mode presented in-class was the discussion
question (55.32%, f=52), with case studies second (31.25%, f=30).
Modes not used a majority of the time included social media interaction
(89.66%, f=78) and public blog (96.55%, f=84).
4. The instructors were generally neutral as to whether the amount of training
was sufficient (n = 175, M = 2.85, SD = 1.03). The results by percentage
were: strongly agree (6.25%), disagree (34.38%), neutral (23.96%), agree
(30.21%), and strongly agree (5.21%).
5. The instructors were generally neutral as to the whether the quality of the
training (n = 176, M = 2.97, SD = 0.99) was sufficient. The results by
percentage were strongly agree (5.21%), disagree (31.25%), neutral
(29.17%), agree (31.25%), and strongly agree (3.13%).
6. Instructors reported that all technologies were available in the classroom
most of the time with all (75 – 100%) (M = 4.76).
7. Instructors reported that they generally strongly agreed that their
administration understood the benefits of multimodal methodologies (n =
96
175, M = 4.84, SD = 0.94) and supported new technologies (n = 177, M =
4.25, SD = 0.80).
8. There was no significant difference in the modes that instructors used
based on the percentage of their teaching assignments in anatomy and
physiology.
9. There were two significant differences based on the total years of teaching
anatomy and physiology. The first significant difference (df = (2, 155), F =
3.246, p = 0.042) based on years of teaching anatomy and physiology was
that instructors with 21 years or greater teaching anatomy and physiology
were less likely to use video or animations (M = 1.48) in their classroom
when compared to instructors who taught anatomy and physiology one to
10 years (M = 1. 93) and instructors who taught anatomy and physiology
11 to 20 years (M = 1.79). The second significant difference (df = (2,
140), F = 4.784, p = 0.010) based on years of teaching anatomy and
physiology was that instructors with 11 to 20 years of teaching anatomy
and physiology were more likely to include the cadaver experience in their
classroom (M = 1.79) when compared to instructors who had taught
anatomy and physiology one to 10 years (M = 1.19) and instructors who
had taught anatomy and physiology 21 years or greater (M = 1.30).
10. There were two significant differences based on the instructor’s highest
degree earned. The first significant difference (df = (2, 155), F = 3.395, p
= 0.036) based on the instructor’s highest earned degree and multimodal
elements was that instructors with doctoral degrees (M = 1.65) were less
97
likely to use video or animations in their classrooms when compared to
instructors with bachelor’s (M = 2.50) or master’s (M = 2.10) degrees. The
second significant difference (df = (2, 170), F = 3.522, p = 0.032) based on
the instructor’s highest earned degree and multimodal elements was that
instructors with bachelor’s degrees (M = 1.50) were less likely to use
lecture in their classrooms when compared to instructors with master’s (M
= 3.25) or doctorate (M = 3.45) degrees.
11. The only significant difference (df = (3, 132), F = 2.913, p = 0.037) based
on the instructor’s teaching status and multimodal elements was that
instructors who are full-time contract (M = 1.87) or full-time tenured (M =
1.40) were more likely to use email when compared to instructors who
were part-time contract (M = 1.25) or adjunct (1.00).
12. There was no significant difference in the modes that instructors used
based on the instructor’s rank and the multimodal elements.
Conclusions
The following conclusions were made based on the study and statistical
analysis of these data gathered via Survey Monkey.
1. Instructors continue to use lecture as their primary means of interaction
with students and do not take advantage of multimodal methodologies. .
2. Public blogs, social media, and in-class texting are not generally a part of
the classroom experience.
3. Email is still the major modality of out of class communication.
98
4. Most instructors are neutral regarding the quality and quantity of the
multimodal training they received.
5. Instructors generally feel that they are receiving support from their
administration and that the administration understands the benefits of
integrating multimodal experiences into the classroom.
6. Instructors with 21 years or greater teaching anatomy and physiology are
less likely to use video or animation in their classroom than instructors
with fewer years.
7. Instructors with 11 to 20 years of teaching anatomy and physiology are
more likely to include cadaver experiences in their classroom than other
instructors.
8. Instructors with doctoral degrees are less likely to include video and
animations in their classroom experience than those with bachelor’s or
master’s degrees.
Discussion
The first research question in this study focused on the how much time
instructors integrated each mode into their classrooms and in what manner they
utilized. Scholars agree that integration of multimodal educational methodologies
results in higher student comprehension. The multimodal methodology
consistently shows activation of higher cognitive brain areas that are not present
with monologue lecture-based approaches (Lanham, 2004). Though multimodal
teaching methodologies have been documented in the literature and proven to
show significant improvements, instructors have not generally incorporated them
99
into their classrooms (Ball & Moeller, 2010). Instructors continue to rely on
lecture as their primary mode within the classroom. New technologies that
created educational opportunities with public blogs, social media, and the use of
cell phones with in-class texting have generally not been integrated into most
classrooms. Instructors with bachelor’s degrees are more likely to minimize the
use of lecture and maximize the use of the other modalities. However, those with
masters and doctoral degrees still rely heavily on lecture as a means of
presenting content to students.
This dissimilarity presents itself again with the use of video or animation.
As the content complexity increases, the impact of animation also increases
(Mayer & Moreno, 2003, p. 233). Many texts now come with instructor resources
that include animations and short videos (Alvermann & Wilson, 2011).
Instructors with greater than 20 years of teaching anatomy and physiology are
less likely to integrate video or animation into their course content when
compared to instructors with 20 years or less. This indicates again that the more
senior instructors are less likely to integrate modes that require new technology
into their classroom experiences.
Instructors also showed variation in their use of email. Some use it as
their primary out of class communication (43%) while a second subset does not
use it at all (35.6%). Upon further examination, the subset that tends to use the
email is made up of full-time instructors (full-time tenured and full-time contract)
while the part-time or adjunct instructors make up the majority of the group that
do not use email at all to communicate with their students. This suggests that
100
full-time instructors generally communicate more with their students out of the
classroom than part-time or adjunct instructors. George (2002) suggested that
the central thread of all education is based on the adequacy of the
communication and that communication in higher learning courses must extend
outside of the confines of the classroom.
The second research question in this study focused on the barriers that
instructors perceive they have that prevent them from integrating multimodal
methodologies into their classrooms. Instructors generally perceive that their
administration understands the benefits of integrating multimodal methodologies
into the classroom and supports new technology as a teaching tool in the
curriculum when appropriate but are often limited by budget and facility
restrictions. Administration must be knowledgeable about the advantages of
multimodal education over the linear classroom model (Bolter & Grusin, 2000).
Instructors must receive high quality and sufficient quantity of training to
ensure that they can successfully integrate multimodal methodologies into their
classrooms (Anderson, 2006). Most instructors were neutral as to whether they
perceive the quality and quantity of their multimodality training. This suggests
that instructors may not strongly feel that they are actually being supported
overall.
Instructors should alter their traditional teaching methodologies by
redefining their class through the integration of multimodal educational practices
(Davis & Shadle, 2007). The study indicates that there was no variation in the
instructor’s use of multimodal teaching in anatomy and physiology classes based
101
on the number of years the instructor had been teaching, the percentage of the
instructor’s teaching assignments in anatomy and physiology, or the instructors
rank.
The third and final research question in this study focused on the
variations in the integration of multimodal methodologies based on instructors’
personal characteristics. The study showed that based on instructors’ total years
of teaching in anatomy and physiology, even though the means for each
category was low, there was variation between how much instructors used video
and animation modes. Instructors with 21 years or greater teaching anatomy and
physiology (M = 1.48) were less likely to use video or animations in their
classroom when compared to instructors who had taught anatomy and
physiology one to 10 years (M = 1. 93) and instructors who had taught anatomy
and physiology 11 to 20 years (M = 1.79). This was further supported by the
variation between instructors based on their highest degree earned and the use
of video and animation. Instructors with doctoral degrees (M = 1.65) were less
likely to use video or animations in their classrooms when compared to
instructors with bachelor’s (M = 2.50) or master’s (M = 2.10) degrees. This would
suggest that as new instructors enter education, they tend to become assimilated
into the methodologies practiced by their senior mentors. Their senior mentors in
turn tend to practice as they were guided in their careers. This suggests that as
instructors are integrated into the system they are more likely to repeat past
methodologies and less likely to integrate new ones in order to be consistent with
their more senior peers.
102
Recommendations
The following recommendations for practice and further study transpired
from the findings and conclusions of the study.
Recommendations for practice.
1. Colleges and universities should review how they integrate new
instructors into their systems. New instructors should have the
opportunity to be mentored by individuals who are trained in
multimodal educational methodologies. Mentors should be selected
not only on their longevity but also on how they integrate multimodal
methodologies into their classroom.
2. Instructors should be encouraged to develop common modules that
can be exchanged so that new multimodal applications can be passed
along easily.
3. Instructor focus groups should be initiated to determine what resources
instructors perceive they require to better integrate multimodal
technologies into their classrooms.
4. A multimodality mentor or group of mentors should be assigned to all
instructors to help them develop and expand multimodality
methodologies in their classes. A formalized set of goals and
expectations should be established by leadership to be accomplished
so each instructor and mentor is clear on the expectations.
5. All textbooks should be evaluated based on the opportunity to apply
multimodality methodologies. Focus on optimally integrating all
103
appropriate multimodalities should be considered and evaluated for
each new textbook.
6. Adjunct and part-time instructors should be interviewed to determine
how they might better communicate with students. Contracts with
adjunct and part-time instructors should contain specific goals and
expectations for communication with students.
7. It is recommended that multimodal methodologies be integrated into all
department and division meetings, literature, and faculty evaluations.
Additionally, formal review should be established by department
leaders to ensure that the process is sustained.
8. All faculty preparatory programs should include coursework on how to
apply multimodal educational methodologies.
9. Ongoing faculty development should include multimodal teaching
methodologies.
Further research.
1. It is recommended that an evidence based practice study be
established to compare student outcomes in-classes that have
integrated multimodal methodologies and those that have not. The
study should not only include how students do in the initial class, but
also how they do in follow-on classes that require the original class for
baseline information.
2. It is recommended that other institutions and states follow through with
similar studies to better understand and ultimately expand the
104
integration of multimedia methodologies into higher learning
classrooms.
3. It is recommended that a qualitative research study be done to
discover more specifically what prevents instructors from integrating
multimodal methodologies into their classes.
4. It is recommended that a study be done focusing on how to better
integrate adjuncts and part-time instructors into faculty development.
Conclusion
The data show that multimodal educational methodologies improve
student retention of class content and that when implemented they not only
increase sustainment, but create retained knowledge that can be recalled into
future scenarios. There is an excellent opportunity for growth of anatomy and
physiology instructors in multimodal methodologies through a formalized process
where goals and expectations are established for instructors and integrated into
annual evaluations. A strong faculty development plan, instituted and sustained,
can move the paradigm from the present status quo to a multimodal approach
that better serves students.
105
REFERENCES
Aiery, J. & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary perspective on university science
learning: Archiving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), pp. 27-49
Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: tools for making learning goals and
evaluation criteria explicit for both instructors and learners. CBE Life
Science Education 5, pp. 197-203
Allen, E. & Seaman, C. (2007). Likert Scales and Data Analysis. Quality
Progress, pp. 64-65
Alvermann, D., & Wilson, A. (2011). Comprehensive Strategy Instruction for
Multimodal Texts in Science. College of Education and Human Ecology,
50, pp. 226-124
Ambrose, S. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles,
San Franciso: Jossey-Bass, pp. 3-5
Anderson, Daniel (2006). Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula:
Survey Methodology and Results from A CCCC Research Grant.
Composition Studies, 34
Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing
times, changing literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association
Aslanian, C. (2001). Adult students today. New York: College Board
Ball, Cheryl (2004). Show Not Tell: The Value of New Media Scholarship.
Computers and Composition, pp. 402-425
106
Ball, C. & Moeller, R. (2008). Converging the Assumptions between U and ME:
or How new media can bridge a scholarly/creative split in English studies.
Computers and Composition Online, Web 12 Mar
Barrows, H. & Peters, M. (1984). How to Begin Reforming the Medical
Curriculum. 1st. Ed. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of
Medicine, p. 204
Baumgartner, L. & Merriam, S. (1999). Adult development and learning:
Multicultural stories. Malabar, Fl: Krieger
Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2004). Design interaction, not interfaces, AVI’04. Gallipoli,
LE, Italy, May 25-28
Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic
account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), pp. 166-
195
Bolter, J. & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding New Media.
Cambridge: MIT Press
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. p. 33
Bland, J., Saunders, G., and Kreps-Frish, J. (2007). In defense of the lecture.
Journal of College Science Teaching. 37(2), pp.10-13
Bligh, D. (2000). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. Cognitive Domain, Vol. 1. New York: McKay
Bolter, J. & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding New Media.
Cambridge: MIT Press
107
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the
centrality of the dissertation literature review in research
preparation. Educational Researcher 34(6), pp. 3-15.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Bridwell-Bowles, L. (1991). Research in Composition: Issues and Methods. An
Introduction to Composition Studies. New York: Oxford University Press,
pp. 94-117
Breckler, J., Joun, D., & Ngo, H. (2009). Learning Styles of Physiology Students
Interested in the Health Profession. Academy of Physiologic Education,
33, pp. 30-36
Burgan, M. (2006). In defense of lecturing. Change, 38: pp. 30-35
Campbell, W. & Smith, K. (1997). New Paradigms for College Teaching. Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Company
Casotti, G., Beneski, J., & Knabb, M. (2013). Teaching Physiology Online:
Successful Use of Cases Studies in a Graduate Course. Advanced
Physiologic Education, 37: pp. 65-69
Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good
practice in undergraduate education. Sand Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass
Cicca, A., Step, M., & Turkstra, L. (2003). Show me what you mean: Nonverbal
communication theory and application. The ASHA Leader, 4-5, 34
108
Clark, M. & Dirkx J. (2000). Moving beyond a unitary self: A reflective dialogue. In
A. I. Wilson & E. R. Hays (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing
education, (pp. 101-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Clark, M. & Rossiter, M. (2008). Narrative Learning in Adulthood. New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 119
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (2008). Handbook of research on
new literacies. New York: Erlbaum
Collins, J. (2008). Modern approaches to teaching and learning. BMJ, 337a, p.
1310
Courts P. & McInerney, K. (1993). Assessment in Higher Education: Politics,
Pedagogy, and Portfolios. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. pp. 33-38
Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. (2008). Biology in Bloom: Implementing
Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life
Science Education 7, pp. 368-381
Davis, R. & Shadle, M. (2007). Teaching Multiwriting: Research and Composing
with Multiple Genres, Media, Disciplines and Cultures. Cargondale:
Southern Illinois UP
DeVoss, D., Cushman, E., & Grabill, J. (2005). Infrastructure and Composing.
The When of New-Media Writing, CCC 57, pp. 14-44
Dornan, T. & Bundy, C. (2004). Learning in practice: What can experience add to
early medical education? Consensus survey. BMJ, 329, pp. 834-837
109
Domingo, M. (2012). Linguistics Layering: Social Language Development in the
Content of Multimodal Design and Digital Technologies. Learning, Media
and Technology, volume 37, n2, pp. 177-197
Durosaro, O., Lachman, N., & Pawlina, W. (2008). Use of knowledge-sharing
web-based portal in gross and microscopic anatomy. Ann Acad Med,
Singapore 37, pp. 998-1001
Feldman, K. (1998). Effective college teaching from the students’ and faculty’s
view: Matched or mismatched priorities? In K. A. Feldman & M. B.
Paulson (Eds.) Teaching and learning in the college classroom, 2nd
edition. Neeham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 215 - 240
Finn, G. & McLachlan, J. (2009). A qualitative study of student responses to body
painting. Anatomy Science Education, 3, pp. 33-38
Fink, L. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated
approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp.
3-10, 22-32, 55-57, 98-106
Florida, R., Kaimal,G., Oblinger, D., & Blessing, L. (2003). How Generations X
and Y (Millenials) Will Reshape Higher Education. Society for College and
University Planning Virtual Seminar, June 30
Fougnie, D. & Marois, R. (2006). Evidence From Attentive Tracking and Visual
Working Memory Paradigms. Psychological Science, 17(6), pp. 526-534
Frankfurt-Nachmias, C. & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research methods in the social
sciences. (4th Ed.). New York: St. Martins’ Press, pp. 186-198
110
Freire, Palo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Continuum
International Publishing Company
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside Down and Inside Out: Flip Your Classroom to Improve
Student Learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, v39, n8, pp. 12-17
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New
York: Basic Books. pp. 39-88
George, D. (2002). From Analysis to Design. Visual Communication in the
Teaching of Writing. CCC 54. Pp. 11-39
Gerstein, J. (2012). The Flipped Classroom: The Full Picture. Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (Kindle Books)
Giddens, A. (1974). Research Methods in Business Studies. (3rd ed). London,
England: Heinemann Education Books, Ltd., pp. 224-321
Goodin, L. (2012). Incorporating Technology Into the Instruction of Social
Studies. Dissertation, APR2013
Gouge, C. (2009). Hybrid Courses and the Future of Writing Programs. College
English 71, pp. 338-362
Gopal, T., Herron, S., & Mohn, R. (2010). Effect of an Interactive Web-Based
Instruction in the Performance of Undergraduate Anatomy and Physiology
Lab Students. Computers & Education, v55, n2, pp. 500-515
Graham, C. & Robinson, R. (2007). Realizing the Transformational Potential of
Blended Learning: Comparing Cases of Transforming Blends and
enhancing Blends in Higher Education. Blended Learning Research
Perspectives. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium
111
Grippin, P. & Peters S. (1984). Learning theory and learning outcomes. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Groves, R., Fowler, F., Floyd, J., Coupter, M., Lepkowski, J., Singer, E. &
Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons. pp. 88-83
Heyling, D. (2002). Anatomy 199-2000: The curriculum, who teaches it, and
how? Medical Education, 36, pp. 702-710
Hill, C. (2004). Reading the Visual in College Writing Courses. Visual Rhetoric in
a Digital World. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s. pp. 107-130
Hill, R. (2004). Activism as practice: Some queer considerations. In R. St. Clair &
J. A. Sandlin (Eds.), Promoting critical practice in adult education (pp. 85-
94). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 102. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Hoyt, D. & Perera, S. (2000). Teaching approach, instructional objectives, and
learning. IDEA Research Report No. 1. Manhattan, KS: IDEA Center
Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2003). Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang
Kangas, B. (2012). Not Waving but Drowning: A Review of Tufte’s “The Cognitive
Style of Powerpoint©”. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, v24, n3, pp. 421-423
Karabulut, U. (2012). How to Tech Critical-thinking in social studies education:
An Examination of Three NCSS Journals. Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, Issue 49, Fall 2012, pp. 197-212
112
Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Keegan, R. (2000). What form Transforms? A Constructive-Development
Approach to Transformation Learning. IN J. Mezirow and Associates
(eds.), Learning as Transformation. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass
Keen S. & Valley-Fox, A. (1989). Your mythic journey: Finding meaning in your
life through writing and storytelling. New York: Tarcher/Putnam
Kitchakam, O. (2012). Using Blogs to Improve Student’s Summary Writing
Abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, v13, n4, pp. 209-
219
Knight, J. K., and Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell
Biology Education, 4, pp. 298–310
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. (1999). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: Book 2: Affective Domain. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Kress, G. (2004). Reading Images: Multimodality, Representation and new Media
at IIID Conference, Expert for Knowledge Presentation. Preparing for the
Future of Knowledge Representation.
http://www.knowledgepesentation.Org/BuildingTheFuture/Kress2.html
Kress, G. & Leuween (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The modes and media of
contemporary communication. London: Oxford University Press
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsataarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching
and learning. The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum
113
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Charalampos, T. (2006). Multimodal teaching
and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum
LaFrance, J. & Calhoun, D. (2012). Student Perceptions of Wikipedia as a
Learning Tool for Education Leaders. International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, v7, n2
Lanham, R. (2004). Implications of Electronic Information for the Sociology of
Knowledge. Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World. New York: Bradford/St.
Martin’s, pp. 455-473
Lefrancois, G. (1999). The Lifespan (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Leu, D. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the
Internet. In A. Farstrup & S. Samuals (Eds.), What Research has to say
about reading instruction (3rd ed). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association, pp. 310-336
Lin, S. (2006). Student Characteristics, Sense of Community, and Cognitive
Achievement in Web-based and Lab-based Learning Environments.
Journal of Research and Technology in Education, 39(2), pp. 205-223
Lutkewitte, C. (2010). Multimodality is….: A survey investigating how graduate
teaching assistants and instructors teach multimodal assignments in first-
year composition courses. Dissertation submitted to Ball State University
Mangurian, L. (2005). Learning and teaching practice: The power of the affective.
Paper presented to the annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching
South. Greensboro, NC
Marton, F. (1992). Phenomenography and the Art of Teaching All Things to All
114
Men. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(3), pp. 253-257
Massie, E. (2003). E-Learning, the Near Future. The AMA Handbook of E-
Learning, pp. 411- 418
Maxwell, J. A. (2006). Literature reviews of, and for, educational research: A
commentary on Boote and Beile's "Scholars Before Researchers".
Educational Researcher 35(9), pp. 28-31
Mayer, R. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimodal
learning. In Web-Based Learning: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go?
Geenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. pp. 23-44
McDrury, J. & Alterio, M. (2000). Achieving reflective learning using storytelling
pathways. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 38 (1). pp.
63-73
McKeown, P, Heylings, D., Stevenson, M., McKelvey, K., Nixon, J., & McClusky,
D. 2003). The impact of curricular change on medical students’ knowledge
of anatomy. Medical Education 37. pp. 954-961
McNuylty, J., Sonntag, B., & Sinacore, J. (2009). Evaluations of computer-aided
instruction in a gross anatomy course: A six year study. Anatomy Science
Education, 2, pp. 2-8
Morton, G. (2000). Combining a Case Study and Original Research in an
Extended Writing Assignment. Business Communication Quarterly,
Volume 63, Number 2, June 2000.
Moxham, B. & Plasiant, O. (2007). Perception of medical students towards
clinical relevance of anatomy. Clinical Anatomy, 20, pp. 560-564
115
Munck, A. & Mayer, P. (2000). Designing Human Protocols: A model of human
collaboration in the light of technology.
http://www.lmunch.Com/articles/HumanComputerProtocls.pdf
Murray, J. (2009). Non-discursive rhetoric. Image and Affect in Multimodal
Composition. New York: SUNY
National Center On Universal Design for Learning (2012). Universal Design for
Learning (UDL): Initiatives on the Move. National Center on UDL
Nelson, L. (2010). Teaching At Its Best. San Franciso: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Newman, F., Couturier, L. & Seurey, J. (2004). The Future of Higher Education.
San Franciso: Jossey-Bass
New London Group (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies designing social
futures. IN B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning
and the design of social futures. London: Routledge, pp. 9-37
New Media Consortium (NMC) (2009). 2009 Horizon Report.
www.nmc.org/publications/2009-horizon-report . Apr
Norris, S. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: A conceptual framework. In
Levine, P. & R. Scollon, editors. Discourse and technology: Multimodal
discourse analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press
Ockjean, K., Utke, B. & Hupp, S. (2005). Comparing the Use of Case Studies
and Application Questions in Preparing Special Education Professionals.
Teacher Education and Special Education, Volume 28, No. 2, 104-113
Pabst, R. (2002). Modern macroscopic anatomy: more than just cadaver
dissection. Anatomy Record, 269, p. 209
116
Pawlina, W. & Lachman, N. (2004). Dissection in learning and teaching gross
anatomy: Rebuttal to McLachlan. Anatomy Record, 281B, pp. 9-11
Pawson, R. & Tilly, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London, England: Sage
Publications. pp. 18-76
Picciano, A. (2011). Blending with Purpose: The Multimodal Model. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 13, Issue 1
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of instructors’ and students’
use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(16), pp. 1843-1866
Plenderleith, J. & Adamson, V. (2009). The Policy Landscape of Transformation.
Transforming Higher Education Through Technology-Enhanced Learning,
pp. 6-18
Pratt D. & Malabar F. (1998). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult Higher
Education. Malabar, FL: Kreiger Publishing
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal
of Engineering Education, 93(3): pp. 223-231
Putz, R. & Pabst, R. (2002). Sobotta Interaktiv, Multimodalles Lernprogramm:
Organe (CD ROM). Version 1.0, Munich, Germany: Urban & Fischer
Roth, W., & Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures,
and emergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction,
12(3), pp. 285-304
117
Shipka, Jody (2009). Negotiating Rhetorical, Material, Methodological, and
Technological Difference: Evaluating Multimodal Designs. CCC 61:1. pp.
343-366
Siegel, I. (1984). A constructivist perspective for teaching thinking. Educational
Leadership, 42(3), pp. 18-21
Smith, M,, Wood, W., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. (2011). Combining Peer
Discussion with Instructor Explanation Increases Student Learning from
In-Class Concept Questions. Life Sciences Education, Vol. 10, Spring
2011, pp. 55-63
Sorcinelli, M. (1991). Research findings on the seven principles. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 47, pp.13–25
Straub, K. (2007). Digital Application of Web-based Laboratory Experiences at
Idaho State University. Geological Society of America
Strayer, J. (2012). How Learning in an Inverted Classroom Influences
Cooperation, Innovation and Task Orientation. Learning Environments
Research, v15, n2, pp. 171-193
Sugand, K., Abrahams, P., & Khurana, A. (2010). The Anatomy of Anatomy: A
Review for Its Modernization
Svinicki, M. (2004). Learning and motivating in the postsecondary classroom.
Bolton, MA: Anker
Taylor, K., & Marienau, C. (1997). Constructive-Development Theory as a
Framework for Assessment in Higher Education. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(2), pp. 233-243
118
Taylor, K., Marienau, C., and Fidler, M. (2000). Developing Adult Learners:
Strategies for Teaching and Trainers. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass
Thompson, Bolin, G., and Coe, A. (2012). Assessing the Degree of Integrated
Learner-Centered Instructions on Student Outcomes in a Large Non-Major
Environment Science Course. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2012
Tough, A. (1979). The Adult’s Learning Projects: A Fresh Approach to Theory
and Practice in Adult Learning. 2nd Edition, Research in Education Series
1. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Austin TX
Trelease, R. (2002). Anatomical informatics: Millennial perspectives on a newer
frontier. Anatomical Record 269, pp. 224-235
Trelease, R. & Rosset, A. 2008). Transforming clinical imaging data for virtual
reality learning objects. Anatomy Science Education 1, pp. 50-55
Tucker, C. (2012). Blended Learning in Grades 4-12: Leveraging the Power of
Technology to Create Student-Centered Classrooms. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications. pp. 44-69
Turney, B. (2007). Anatomy in a modern medical Curriculum. Ann R.
Coll,Surgical English 89, pp. 194-107
Tutkun, O. (2011). Internet Access: Use and Sharing Levels Among Studnets
During the Teaching-Learning Process. Turkish Online Journal of
Education Technology, July, Vol 10, Issue 3. pp. 152-160
119
Vie, Stephanie (2008). Digital Divide 2.0: Generation M’ and Online Social
Networking Sties int eh Composition Classroom. Computers and
Composition 25, pp. 9-23
Walker, J., Cotner, H., Baepler, P., and Decker, M. (2008). A delicate balance:
Integrating active learning into a large lecture course. Journal of Life
Sciences Education 7(4), pp. 361-367
Wang, J., Chun-Fu, C., & Wei-Chieh, W. (2013). Meaningful Engagement in
Facebook Learning Environments: Merging Social and Academic Lives.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, v14, n1, pp. 302-322
Wang, R., Mattick, K., & Dunne, E. (2010) Medical Students’ Perceptions of
Video-Linked Lectures and Video-Streaming, Research in Learning
Technology, v18, pp. 19-27
Weir, J. & Abrahams, P. (1997). Imaging Atlas of Human Anatomy CD-ROM,
Version 2.0. 1st Edition, London, UK: Mosby
Whitehouse, J. (2008). Discussion with a Difference: questions and co-operative
learning. Ethos, Term 1.
Willingham, D. (2008). What is Developmentally Appropriate? American
Instructor, 32(2): pp. 34-39
Wright, I. (1995). Critical-thinking in social studies: Beliefs, commitments, and
implementation. Canadian Social Studies, 29(2), pp. 66-68
Zoller, U., & Tsparlis, G. (1997). Higher and lower-order cognitive skills: The case
of chemistry. Research in Science Education, 27(1), pp. 117-130
130
Survey Matrix
Survey Question
Research Questions
Cited Literature Reference
1 - 6 1 Lecture: (Murray, 2009), (Courts & McInerney, 1993), (Walker, Cotner, Baepler, & Decker, 2008), (Knight & Wood, 2006), (Alvermann & Wilson, 2011), (Gerstein, 2012), (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2012), (Strayer, 2012), (Prain & Waldrip, 2006), (Roth & Lawless, 2002). Web Based Labs: (Hoyte & Perera, 2000), (Gopal, Herron, & Mohn, 2010), (Lin, 2006), (Straub, 2007), (Gerstein, 2012), (Sugand, Abrahams, & Khurana, 2010), (McNulty, Sonntag, & Sinacore, 2009), (Putz & Pabst, 2002), (Turney, 2007). Case Studies: (Thompson, Bolin, & Coe, 2012), (Karabulut, 2012), (Morton, 2000), (Ockjean, Utke, & Hupp, 2005), (Casotti, Beneski, & Knabb, 2013), (Baumgartner & Merriam, 1999). Discussion Questions: (Karabulut, 2012), (Ockjean, Utke, & Hupp, 2005), (Whitehouse, 2008), (Gerstein, 2012). Public Blog: (Kitchakam, 2012), (Wang, Chun-Fu, & Wei-Cheih, 2012), (Whitehouse, 2008). Simmulation: (Hoyte & Perera, 2000), (Gopal, Herron, & Mohn, 2010), (Lin, 2006), (Straub, 2007), (Gerstein, 2012), (Sugand, Abrahams, & Khurana, 2010), (McNulty, Sonntag, & Sinacore, 2009), (Putz & Pabst, 2002), (Turney, 2007). Cadaver: (Pawlina & Lachman, 2004), (McNulty, Sonntag, & Sinacore, 2009), ( Putz & Pabst, 2002). In-class Labs: (Gopal, Herron, & Mohn, 2010), (Pawlina & Lachman, 2004), (Turney, 2007). Student Presentations: (Ambrose, 2010) Social Media: (Newman, Couturier, & Seurey, 2004), (Wang, Chun-Fu, & Wei-Cheih, 2012),
131
(Fougnie & Marois, 2006). Class Polling Mechanisms: (Thompson, Bolin, & Coe, 2012). Video/Animations: (Ball & Moeller, 2010), (Lanham, 2004), (Devoss, Cushman, & Grabill, 2005), (Tutkun, 2011), (Alvermann & Wilson, 2011), (Lin, 2006), (Clark & Dirkx, 2000), ((mayer & Moreno, 2003), (Alvermann & Wilson, 2011), (LaFrance & Calhoun, 2012), (Weir & Abrahams, 1997), (McNulty, Sonntag, & Sinacore, 2009), (Roth & Lawless, 2002), (Finn & McLachlan, 2009). Email: (McNulty, Sonntag, & Sinacore, 2009). In-class Texting: (Newman, Couturier, & Seurey, 2004).
7 & 8 4 (Lutkewitte, 2010), (Moxham & Plaisant, 2007).
9 2b (Ball & Moeller, 2010), (Lanham, 2004), (Devoss, Cushman, & Grabill, 2005), (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), (Wang, Mattick, & Dunne, 2010).
10 - 14 2c (Bolter & Grusin, 2000)
15 - 21 4 (Davis & Shadle, 2007), (P:icciano, 2011),(Grippen & Peters, 1984), (Walker, Cotner, Baepler, & Decker, 2008), (Knight & Wood, 2006), (Campbell & Smith, 1997), (Pratt & Malabar, 1998), (Thompson, Bolin, & Coe, 2012), (Heyling, 2002).
22 & 23 2a (Shipka, 2005), (Walker, Cotner, Baepler, & Decker, 2008).
133
Date:
Dear Colleague:
If you teach in a two or four year college or university, you are invited to participate in a
research study to help determine the penetration of multimodal teaching in the anatomy
and physiology classroom as well as the perceived barriers that may limit or prevent it
from being used. The results of this study will be published and made available to the
membership upon completion of the researcher’s successful dissertation defense.
For the purposes of this study, the term “multimodal” will be defined as, “teaching
students using multiple media in an approach that incorporates several kinds of media.
For instance a classroom set up in a multimodal methodology would include internet
access, overhead projectors, web-based experiences, interactive blogs or discussion
questions, or group activities.
We very much hope you will participate in this study because it will be specifically
focused on anatomy and physiology classrooms. It will represent an opportunity to
evaluate a subject near and dear to those of us who teach this curriculum. The entire
survey will require less than ten minutes to complete but will offer an extensive
opportunity to exhibit how much technology is integrated into teaching of anatomy and
physiology.
To participate in the survey, just click on the following link: [Survey Link]
There are no known risks from being in this study, and you will not benefit personally.
However, we hope that others may benefit in the future from what we learn as a result of
this study.
All survey responses that we receive will be treated confidentially and stored on a secure
server. However, given that the surveys can be completed from any computer (e.g.,
personal, work, school), we are unable to guarantee the security of the computer on
which you choose to enter your responses. As a participant in our study, we want you to
be aware that certain "key logging" software programs exist that can be used to track or
capture data that you enter and/or websites that you visit.
Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary. If you decide not to be
in this study, or if you stop participating at any time, you will not be penalized or lose any
benefits for which you are otherwise entitled.
If you have any questions, concerns or complaints now or later, you may contact us at the
number below. If you have any questions about your rights as a human subject,
complaints, concerns or wish to talk to someone who is independent of the research,
134
contact the Office for Human Subjects Protections at 605/677-6184. Thank you for your
time.
Sincerely,
Dr. Karen Card, EdD Gerald McGraw, PA, MPAS, MBA
Educational Administration Doctoral Candidate
(605) 677-5815 (605) 545-0656
136
Differences in Instructor’s Teaching Assignments in Anatomy and Physiology
Mode Quartile N M SD
Lecture
2.00 83 3.49 1.19
3.00 32 3.00 0.98
4.00 57 3.47 1.00
Total 172 3.40 1.11
Web-based Labs
2.00 70 1.17 0.56
3.00 24 1.04 0.20
4.00 48 1.29 0.65
Total 142 1.19 0.56
Case Studies
2.00 80 1.54 0.78
3.00 25 1.36 0.57
4.00 54 1.56 0.82
Total 159 1.52 0.76
Discussion Question
2.00 76 1.68 0.87
3.00 27 1.37 0.63
4.00 51 1.82 0.95
Total 154 1.68 0.87
Public Blog
2.00 69 1.03 0.17
3.00 23 1.00 0.00
4.00 43 1.07 0.46
Total 135 1.04 0.28
Computer Simulation
2.00 73 1.30 0.68
3.00 25 1.24 0.44
4.00 46 1.41 0.78
Total 144 1.33 0.68
Cadaver Experience
2.00 70 1.47 1.09
3.00 25 1.16 0.47
4.00 47 1.43 1.10
Total 142 1.40 1.01
In-class Lab
2.00 78 1.96 1.17
3.00 32 2.19 0.93
4.00 50 2.36 1.17
Total 160 2.13 1.13
Student Presentation
2.00 70 1.31 0.67
3.00 25 1.32 0.69
4.00 45 1.33 0.74
137
Total 140 1.32 0.69
Social Media Experience
2.00 68 1.00 0.00
3.00 23 1.04 0.21
4.00 43 1.09 0.37
Total 134 1.04 0.23
In-class Polling
2.00 73 1.26 0.50
3.00 25 1.16 0.37
4.00 44 1.41 0.79
Total 142 1.29 0.59
Video animation
2.00 79 1.73 0.96
3.00 27 1.56 0.85
4.00 51 1.88 1.01
Total 157 1.75 0.96
2.00 74 1.54 1.06
3.00 23 1.39 0.78
4.00 45 1.71 1.12
Total 142 1.57 1.04
In-class Texting
2.00 67 1.00 0.00
3.00 23 1.22 0.74
4.00 43 1.00 0.00
Total 133 1.07 0.31
138
ANOVA of Differences in Instructor’s Teaching Assignments in Anatomy and Physiology
Mode df F Sig. = P
Lecture
Between Groups
2 2.564 0.08
Within Groups
169
Web-based Labs
Between Groups
2 1.702 0.186
Within Groups
139
Case Studies
Between Groups
2 0.626 0.536
Within Groups
156
Discussion Questions
Between Groups
2 2.449 0.09
Within Groups
151
Public Blog
Between Groups
2 0.505 0.605
Within Groups
132
Computer Simulation
Between Groups
2 0.626 0.536
Within Groups
141
Cadaver Experience
Between Groups
2 0.893 0.412
Within Groups
139
In-class Lab
Between Groups
2 1.955 0.145
Within Groups
157
Student Presentation
Between Groups
2 0.01 0.99
Within Groups
137
Social Media
Between Groups
2 2.278 0.107
Within 131
139
Groups
Between Groups
2 1.607 0.204
Polling Within Groups
139
Video Animation
Between Groups
2 1.053 0.351
Within Groups
154
Between Groups
2 0.779 0.461
Within Groups
139
In-class Texting
Between Groups
2 4.905 0.009
Within Groups
130
140
Differences in Total Years Teaching
Mode Quartile N M SD
Lecture
1.00 54 3.28 1.11
2.00 53 3.36 1.11
3.00 65 3.49 1.09
Total 172 3.38 1.10
Web-based Labs
1.00 46 1.13 0.34
2.00 47 1.28 0.68
3.00 50 1.16 0.58
Total 143 1.19 0.56
Case Studies
1.00 51 1.53 0.73
2.00 47 1.61 0.90
3.00 61 1.44 0.67
Total 159 1.52 0.76
Discussion Question
1.00 48 1.71 0.85
2.00 50 1.82 1.00
3.00 57 1.53 0.73
Total 155 1.68 0.87
Public Blog
1.00 42 1.02 0.15
2.00 43 1.07 0.46
3.00 51 1.02 0.14
Total 136 1.04 0.28
Computer Simulation
1.00 46 1.28 0.50
2.00 46 1.50 0.96
3.00 53 1.23 0.47
Total 145 1.33 0.68
Cadaver Experience
1.00 43 1.23 0.75
2.00 46 1.65 1.32
3.00 54 1.31 0.84
Total 143 1.40 1.01
In-class Lab
1.00 50 2.36 1.05
2.00 53 2.13 1.21
3.00 58 1.91 1.11
Total 161 2.12 1.13
Student Presentation
1.00 45 1.29 0.51
2.00 46 1.39 0.83
3.00 50 1.28 0.70
141
Total 141 1.32 0.69
Social Media Experience
1.00 42 1.07 0.26
2.00 43 1.05 0.31
3.00 50 1.00 0.00
Total 135 1.04 0.23
In-class Polling
1.00 45 1.42 0.78
2.00 46 1.24 0.48
3.00 52 1.23 0.47
Total 143 1.29 0.59
Video animation
1.00 50 1.84 0.98
2.00 52 1.92 1.15
3.00 56 1.50 0.66
Total 158 1.75 0.96
1.00 45 1.73 1.23
2.00 46 1.67 1.07
3.00 52 1.33 0.76
Total 143 1.57 1.04
In-class Texting
1.00 42 1.07 0.46
2.00 41 1.05 0.31
3.00 51 1.00 0.00
Total 134 1.04 0.31
142
ANOVA of Differences in Total Years Teaching
Mode df F Sig. = P
Lecture
Between Groups 2 .579 .562
Within Groups 169
Total 171
Web-based
Labs
Between Groups 2 .905 .407
Within Groups 140
Total 142
Case Studies
Between Groups 2 .697 .500
Within Groups 156
Total 158
Discussion
Questions
Between Groups 2 1.583 .209
Within Groups 152
Total 154
Public Blog
Between Groups 2 .426 .654
Within Groups 133
Total 135
Computer
Simulation
Between Groups 2 2.216 .113
Within Groups 142
Total 144
Cadaver
Experience
Between Groups 2 2.265 .108
Within Groups 140
Total 142
In-class Lab
Between Groups 2 2.112 .124
Within Groups 158
Total 160
Student
Presentation
Between Groups 2 .372 .690
Within Groups 138
Total 140
Social Media
Between Groups 2 1.204 .303
Within Groups 132
Total 134
Polling
Between Groups 2 1.565 .213
Within Groups 140
Total 142
Video Animation Between Groups 2 3.058 .050
Within Groups 155
143
Total 157
Between Groups 2 2.250 .109
Within Groups 140
Total 142
In-class Texting
Between Groups 2 .647 .525
Within Groups 131
Total 133
144
Differences in Total Years Teaching In Anatomy and Physiology
Mode Quartile N M SD
Lecture
1.00 65 3.29 1.07
2.00 50 3.40 1.12
3.00 58 3.50 1.13
Total 173 3.39 1.10
Web-based Labs
1.00 56 1.14 0.35
2.00 43 1.26 0.69
3.00 44 1.18 0.62
Total 143 1.19 0.56
Case Studies
1.00 62 1.56 0.82
2.00 43 1.58 0.85
3.00 55 1.42 0.60
Total 160 1.52 0.76
Discussion Question
1.00 58 1.76 0.96
2.00 46 1.76 0.92
3.00 51 1.51 0.67
Total 155 1.68 0.87
Public Blog
1.00 53 1.02 0.14
2.00 38 1.08 0.49
3.00 45 1.02 0.15
Total 136 1.04 0.28
Computer Simulation
1.00 56 1.30 0.54
2.00 42 1.45 0.97
3.00 47 1.26 0.49
Total 145 1.33 0.68
Cadaver Experience
1.00 54 1.19 0.68
2.00 42 1.79 1.37
3.00 47 1.30 0.86
Total 143 1.40 1.01
In-class Lab
1.00 62 2.21 1.06
2.00 47 2.26 1.21
3.00 52 1.90 1.14
Total 161 2.12 1.13
Student Presentation
1.00 58 1.31 0.54
2.00 39 1.38 0.88
3.00 44 1.27 0.69
145
Total 141 1.32 0.69
Social Media Experience
1.00 53 1.06 0.23
2.00 38 1.05 0.32
3.00 44 1.00 0.00
Total 135 1.04 0.23
In-class Polling
1.00 56 1.38 0.73
2.00 41 1.27 0.50
3.00 46 1.22 0.47
Total 143 1.29 0.59
Video animation
1.00 61 1.93 1.06
2.00 47 1.79 1.04
3.00 50 1.48 0.65
Total 158 1.75 0.96
1.00 55 1.82 1.32
2.00 42 1.48 0.77
3.00 46 1.35 0.79
Total 143 1.57 1.04
In-class Texting
1.00 53 1.06 0.41
2.00 36 1.06 0.33
3.00 45 1.00 0.00
Total 134 1.04 0.31
146
ANOVA of the Differences in Total Years Teaching In Anatomy and Physiology
Mode df F Sig. = P
Lecture
Between Groups 2 .542 .583
Within Groups 170
Total 172
Web-based
Labs
Between Groups 2 .503 .606
Within Groups 140
Total 142
Case Studies
Between Groups 2 .737 .480
Within Groups 157
Total 159
Discussion
Questions
Between Groups 2 1.427 .243
Within Groups 152
Total 154
Public Blog
Between Groups 2 .584 .559
Within Groups 133
Total 135
Computer
Simulation
Between Groups 2 1.013 .366
Within Groups 142
Total 144
Cadaver
Experience
Between Groups 2 4.784 .010
Within Groups 140
Total 142
In-class Lab
Between Groups 2 1.483 .230
Within Groups 158
Total 160
Student
Presentation
Between Groups 2 .277 .758
Within Groups 138
Total 140
Social Media
Between Groups 2 .882 .416
Within Groups 132
Total 134
Polling
Between Groups 2 .949 .390
Within Groups 140
Total 142
Video Animation Between Groups 2 3.246 .042
Within Groups 155
147
Total 157
Between Groups 2 2.868 .060
Within Groups 140
Total 142
In-class Texting
Between Groups 2 .486 .616
Within Groups 131
Total 133
148
Differences in the Highest Degree Earned
Mode Degree N M SD
Lecture
Bachelors 2 1.50 0.71 Masters 32 3.25 1.08 Doctorate 139 3.45 1.09 Total 173 3.39 1.10
Web-based Labs
Bachelors 2 1.00 0.00 Masters 25 1.28 0.46 Doctorate 116 1.17 0.58 Total 143 1.19 0.56
Case Studies
Bachelors 2 1.50 0.71 Masters 28 1.39 0.83 Doctorate 130 1.55 0.75 Total 160 1.52 0.76
Discussion Question
Bachelors 2 1.00 0.00 Masters 27 1.74 0.90 Doctorate 126 1.67 0.87 Total 155 1.68 0.87
Public Blog
Bachelors 2 1.00 0.00 Masters 23 1.00 0.00 Doctorate 111 1.05 0.31 Total 136 1.04 0.28
Computer Simulation
Bachelors 2 1.00 0.00 Masters 26 1.35 0.63 Doctorate 117 1.33 0.69 Total 145 1.33 0.68
Cadaver Experience
Bachelors 2 1.00 0.00 Masters 25 1.44 0.96 Doctorate 116 1.40 1.03 Total 143 1.40 1.01
In-class Lab
Bachelors 2 3.50 0.71 Masters 30 2.07 1.05 Doctorate 129 2.12 1.15 Total 161 2.12 1.13
Student Presentation
Bachelors 2 1.50 0.71 Masters 24 1.17 0.48 Doctorate 115 1.35 0.73 Total 141 1.32 0.69
Social Media Experience
Bachelors 2 1.00 0.00 Masters 23 1.00 0.00 Doctorate 110 1.05 0.25 Total 135 1.04 0.23
149
In-class Polling
Bachelors 2 1.00 0.00 Masters 24 1.38 0.71 Doctorate 117 1.28 0.57 Total 143 1.29 0.59
Video animation
Bachelors 2 2.50 2.12 Masters 30 2.10 1.06 Doctorate 126 1.65 0.90 Total 158 1.75 0.96
Bachelors 2 1.00 0.00 Masters 25 1.64 1.15 Doctorate 116 1.56 1.02 Total 143 1.57 1.04
In-class Texting
Bachelors 2 1.00 0.00 Masters 22 1.00 0.00 Doctorate 110 1.05 0.34 Total 134 1.04 0.31
150
ANOVA of the Differences in the Highest Degree Earned
Mode df F Sig. = P
Lecture
Between Groups 2 3.522 .032
Within Groups 170
Total 172
Web-based
Labs
Between Groups 2 .498 .609
Within Groups 140
Total 142
Case Studies
Between Groups 2 .466 .629
Within Groups 157
Total 159
Discussion
Questions
Between Groups 2 .680 .508
Within Groups 152
Total 154
Public Blog
Between Groups 2 .256 .775
Within Groups 133
Total 135
Computer
Simulation
Between Groups 2 .243 .784
Within Groups 142
Total 144
Cadaver
Experience
Between Groups 2 .176 .839
Within Groups 140
Total 142
In-class Lab
Between Groups 2 1.525 .221
Within Groups 158
Total 160
Student
Presentation
Between Groups 2 .752 .474
Within Groups 138
Total 140
Social Media
Between Groups 2 .410 .664
Within Groups 132
Total 134
Polling
Between Groups 2 .493 .612
Within Groups 140
Total 142
Video Animation Between Groups 2 3.395 .036
Within Groups 155
151
Total 157
Between Groups 2 .359 .699
Within Groups 140
Total 142
In-class Texting
Between Groups 2 .209 .812
Within Groups 131
Total 133
152
Differences in Instructors’ Teaching Status
Mode Status N M SD
Lecture
Full Tim Tenured 97 3.37 1.03 Full-time contract 55 3.42 1.18 Part-time contract 4 2.75 0.50 Adjunct 9 3.44 1.59
Web-based Labs
Total 165 3.38 1.11 Full Tim Tenured 81 1.15 0.50 Full-time contract 48 1.27 0.68 Part-time contract 4 1.00 0.00
Case Studies
Adjunct 6 1.17 0.41 Total 139 1.19 0.56 Full Tim Tenured 90 1.54 0.80 Full-time contract 51 1.59 0.78
Discussion Question
Part-time contract 4 1.25 0.50 Adjunct 8 1.25 0.46 Total 153 1.54 0.77 Full Tim Tenured 87 1.72 0.92
Public Blog
Full-time contract 50 1.74 0.83 Part-time contract 4 1.50 0.58 Adjunct 6 1.33 0.82 Total 147 1.71 0.88
Computer Simulation
Full Tim Tenured 77 1.04 0.34 Full-time contract 44 1.02 0.15 Part-time contract 4 1.00 0.00 Adjunct 6 1.17 0.41
Cadaver Experience
Total 131 1.04 0.29 Full Tim Tenured 82 1.24 0.60 Full-time contract 48 1.48 0.77 Part-time contract 4 1.25 0.50
In-class Lab
Adjunct 6 1.33 0.82 Total 140 1.33 0.67 Full Tim Tenured 81 1.35 0.94 Full-time contract 47 1.57 1.21
Student Presentation
Part-time contract 4 1.50 1.00 Adjunct 5 1.00 0.00 Total 137 1.42 1.03 Full Tim Tenured 88 2.08 1.12
Social Media Experience
Full-time contract 54 2.26 1.22 Part-time contract 4 3.00 0.82 Adjunct 8 1.38 0.74 Total 154 2.13 1.15
153
In-class Polling
Full Tim Tenured 80 1.36 0.73 Full-time contract 46 1.28 0.69 Part-time contract 4 1.25 0.50 Adjunct 5 1.20 0.45
Video animation
Total 135 1.33 0.70 Full Tim Tenured 77 1.04 0.25 Full-time contract 44 1.02 0.15 Part-time contract 4 1.25 0.50
Adjunct 5 1.00 0.00 Total 130 1.04 0.23 Full Tim Tenured 79 1.28 0.48 Full-time contract 48 1.40 0.79
In-class Texting
Part-time contract 4 1.00 0.00 Adjunct 7 1.00 0.00 Total 138 1.30 0.60 Full Tim Tenured 85 1.58 0.75
Full-time contract 44 1.28 0.54 Part-time Contract 4 1.00 0.00 Adjunct 5 1.00 0.00
154
ANOVA of the Differences in Instructors’ Teaching Status
Mode df F Sig. = P
Lecture
Between Groups 3 .461 .710
Within Groups 161
Total 164
Web-based
Labs
Between Groups 3 .637 .593
Within Groups 135
Total 138
Case Studies
Between Groups 3 .630 .597
Within Groups 149
Total 152
Discussion
Questions
Between Groups 3 .466 .706
Within Groups 143
Total 146
Public Blog
Between Groups 3 .457 .713
Within Groups 127
Total 130
Computer
Simulation
Between Groups 3 1.261 .291
Within Groups 136
Total 139
Cadaver
Experience
Between Groups 3 .779 .508
Within Groups 133
Total 136
In-class Lab
Between Groups 3 2.261 .084
Within Groups 150
Total 153
Student
Presentation
Between Groups 3 .198 .898
Within Groups 131
Total 134
Social Media
Between Groups 3 1.254 .293
Within Groups 126
Total 129
Polling
Between Groups 3 1.383 .251
Within Groups 134
Total 137
Video Animation Between Groups 3 2.275 .082
Within Groups 148
155
Total 151
Between Groups 3 2.913 .037
Within Groups 132
Total 135
In-class Texting
Between Groups 3 1.255 .293
Within Groups 125
Total 128
156
Differences in the Instructors’ Rank
Mode Rank N M SD
Lecture
Instructor 31 3.39 1.26
Assistant Professor 39 3.49 1.12
Associate Professor 34 3.41 0.99
Professor 60 3.33 1.10 Total 164 3.40 1.11
Web-based Labs
Instructor 27 1.37 0.97
Assistant Professor 29 1.17 0.38
Associate Professor 25 1.08 0.40
Professor 57 1.21 0.49 Total 138 1.21 0.59
Case Studies
Instructor 28 1.57 0.96
Assistant Professor 36 1.53 0.65
Associate Professor 26 1.46 0.58
Professor 61 1.54 0.79 Total 151 1.53 0.76
Discussion Question
Instructor 28 1.54 0.84
Assistant Professor 33 1.55 0.67
Associate Professor 28 1.75 0.84
Professor 58 1.78 0.88 Total 147 1.67 0.82
Public Blog
Instructor 25 1.00 0.00
Assistant Professor 28 1.04 0.19
Associate Professor 22 1.00 0.00
Professor 55 1.07 0.42 Total 130 1.04 0.29
Computer Simulation
Instructor 27 1.44 0.93
Assistant Professor 30 1.27 0.52
Associate Professor 24 1.33 0.48
Professor 58 1.34 0.71 Total 139 1.35 0.69
Cadaver Experience
Instructor 27 1.56 1.19
Assistant Professor 30 1.13 0.43
157
Associate Professor 24 1.21 0.66
Professor 56 1.59 1.25 Total 137 1.42 1.03
In-class Lab
Instructor 31 2.00 1.10
Assistant Professor 33 1.79 0.89
Associate Professor 30 2.00 0.98
Professor 59 2.39 1.26 Total 153 2.10 1.12
Student Presentation
Instructor 25 1.20 0.50
Assistant Professor 29 1.31 0.66
Associate Professor 24 1.42 0.78
Professor 56 1.34 0.77 Total 134 1.32 0.70
Social Media Experience
Instructor 25 1.00 0.00
Assistant Professor 27 1.00 0.00
Associate Professor 22 1.05 0.21
Professor 55 1.05 0.30 Total 129 1.03 0.21
In-class Polling
Instructor 26 1.27 0.53
Assistant Professor 30 1.33 0.84
Associate Professor 25 1.32 0.48
Professor 56 1.30 0.54 Total 137 1.31 0.60
Video animation
Instructor 30 1.60 0.81
Assistant Professor 33 1.70 0.95
Associate Professor 31 1.74 1.00
Professor 57 1.86 1.06 Total 151 1.75 0.97
Instructor 26 1.54 1.03
Assistant Professor 30 1.47 1.01
Associate Professor 24 1.58 0.83
Professor 56 1.48 0.95 Total 136 1.51 0.95
In-class Texting
Instructor 25 1.00 0.00
Assistant Professor 27 1.00 0.00
Associate Professor 21 1.10 0.44
Professor 55 1.05 0.40
159
ANOVA of the Differences in the Instructors’ Rank
Mode df F Sig. = P
Lecture
Between Groups 3 .153 .927
Within Groups 160
Total 163
Web-based
Labs
Between Groups 3 1.131 .339
Within Groups 134
Total 137
Case Studies
Between Groups 3 .102 .959
Within Groups 147
Total 150
Discussion
Questions
Between Groups 3 .911 .437
Within Groups 143
Total 146
Public Blog
Between Groups 3 .529 .663
Within Groups 126
Total 129
Computer
Simulation
Between Groups 3 .315 .815
Within Groups 135
Total 138
Cadaver
Experience
Between Groups 3 1.816 .147
Within Groups 133
Total 136
In-class Lab
Between Groups 3 2.401 .070
Within Groups 149
Total 152
Student
Presentation
Between Groups 3 .408 .748
Within Groups 130
Total 133
Social Media
Between Groups 3 .612 .608
Within Groups 125
Total 128
Polling
Between Groups 3 .057 .982
Within Groups 133
Total 136
Video Animation Between Groups 3 .506 .679
Within Groups 147
Top Related