For survey 1, a total of 51 (100%) students participated. Survey 2 saw lower participation at 42 (84% as one student dropped from the course) students. The statistical software SPSS 29.0.1.0 was used to examine these data. Both Likert-scale surveys were tested for their reliability and validity. The result of Cronbach’s alpha analysis of survey 1 was 0.666, which falls slightly below the standard level of reliability at 0.70. In comparison, Cronbach’s alpha analysis for survey 2 was 0.903, demonstrating its reliability. Construct convergent validity for each survey was examined using a two-tailed Pearson’s correlation test; the total score of responses correlated significantly (p ≤ 0.002) with individual responses for all statements, demonstrating the surveys’ validity. Because all survey statements were written based on a centralized theme and expected to correlate, discriminant validity was not tested. It is recognized that these data reflect the validity and reliability of a novel survey, but will be used to guide future research using these assessments.

Surveys 1 and 2: Perspective Variation After Anatomage Table Incorporation

The distribution of responses for surveys 1 and 2 were compared to assess changes in perspectives regarding the use of virtual technology after the implementation of the Anatomage Table Pilot project and its in-class implementation. Figure 1 displays the distribution of responses for each survey. A Mann-Whitney U independent t test was employed to compare the distribution of each statement asked on both surveys (Table 1). Among all survey responses, there was a slight decline among students who agreed the table should be included in the curriculum or were motivated by it to learn. In comparison, there was a significant shift among those who agreed with the statement that the technology is superior to traditional teaching methods. It is important to note that superiority applies to a comparison with existing resources in the BMS anatomy curriculum such as atlases, videos, and diagrams. It did not include cadaveric dissection as this is not a part of the curriculum, which was clarified during the administration of both surveys.

Fig. 1

Response distribution for Survey 1 and Survey 2

Table 1 Comparison of first and second survey response distribution of Anatomage perspective survey

The results for the first statement—Virtual technology/The Anatomage table should be included in anatomy curriculum—from survey 1 demonstrates that students primarily thought virtual technology should be included in anatomy curriculum (StA, 39.22%; SoA, 50.98%; N, 9.80%). No respondents selected either disagree statement in survey 1 (Fig. 1), compared to 4.76% of respondents who selected somewhat disagreed in survey 2. Between surveys 1 and 2, there was a shift in perspective away from those who strongly agreed that the table should be included in the curriculum. Respondents who strongly agreed shifted from 39.22% in survey 1 to 30.95% in survey 2 and those that somewhat agreed shifted from 50.98% in survey 1 to 57.14% in survey 2. This shift was not significant but suggests a more measured perspective of virtual technology after its implementation.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses for each of the three statements included on both surveys 1 and 2, represents changing student perspective before and after the implementation of the Anatomage Table Pilot Program and use of the technology in-class.

Opposing the results described above, responses shifted towards agreement for the second statement—Virtual technology/The Anatomage table is superior to traditional teaching methods for anatomy—between surveys 1 and 2 (Fig. 1). A decrease in the percentage of respondents who disagreed (survey 1, 27.45%; survey 2, 16.67%) and neither agreed nor disagreed (survey 1, 50.96%; survey 2, 35.71%) with the statement was observed between surveys 1 and 2. Meanwhile, the percentage of those who somewhat agreed that the Anatomage table is superior to traditional teaching methods increased from 19.61% in survey 1 to 45.24% in survey 2. Only minor changes were observed in the strongly agreed response (survey 1, 1.96%; survey 2, 2.38%). This change in distribution, driven by an upward trend among those who somewhat agreed with the statement, was significant (p = 0.019) (Table 1).

There was no significant difference between surveys 1 and 2 for the third survey statement—I feel motivated to learn anatomy using virtual technology/the Anatomage table. However, like the first statement, there was a downward shift among participants who strongly agreed that they were motivated by the technology (Table 1). In survey 1, 37.25% of students felt strongly motivated compared to 23.81% in survey 2. While the percentage of responses deviated little for those who somewhat agreed (survey 1, 39.22%; survey 2, 40.48%), those who neither agreed nor disagreed and those who somewhat disagreed with the statement rose from 17.65 to 23.81% and 5.88 to 9.52%, respectively. While neither the first nor the second statement in the survey demonstrated significant changes, both trended from agreement towards disagreement.

Table 1 shows the comparison of questions shared between survey 1 and survey 2 using a Mann-Whitney U test.

Anatomage Table Pilot Project: Participants’ and Non-Participants’ PerspectivesCurriculum Integration Perspective

Perspectives among Anatomage Table Pilot participants and non-participants were compared using responses from survey 2 (Tables 2 and 3). A total of 20 participants and 22 non-participants responded to the second survey. Overall, pilot participants were more likely to strongly agree with the statements related to the incorporation of the table into anatomy curriculum (statements 1–3, Table 2) and less likely to neither agree nor disagree. While 90% of participants and 86.36% of non-participants agreed that the table should be included in anatomy curriculum, 45.00% of participants versus 18.18% of non-participants strongly agreed. While the difference in response distribution does not differ significantly (p = 0.091), it corresponds to other trends observed between these two groups.

Table 2 Second survey results by pilot participants and non-participants, subdivided by perspective on curriculum integration and content retentionTable 3 Comparison of second survey response distribution between Anatomage Table Pilot Program participants and non-participants

Table 2 shows the results of the second survey by pilot participants and non-participants and is subdivided by perspective on curriculum integration and perspective on content retention by the respondents.

Table 3 shows the comparison of pilot participant and non-participant response distribution for survey 2 using a Mann-Whitney U test.

A similar pattern was observed for participants and non-participants when asked about their motivation to learn anatomy by using table (Table 2; Fig. 2). Among participants 40.00% strongly agreed and 40.00% somewhat agreed that the virtual tool motivated them. In comparison 9.09% and 40.91% of non-participants responded to the same statement with strongly or somewhat agreed, respectively. Moreover, only 10.00% of participants responded that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, compared to 36.36% among non-participants. A minority of students did not feel motivated to learn anatomy using the Anatomage table (participants: SoD 5.00%, StD 5.00%; non-participants; SoD 13.64%, StD 0.00%). The distribution of these differing perspectives on motivation were significantly different from one another (p = 0.021) (Table 3).

Fig. 2

Response distribution for anatomage table pilot project participants and non-participants for the statement- I feel motivated to learn anatomy using the anatomage table

Responses between participants and non-participants varied only slightly for the statements that the Anatomage table is superior compared to traditional teaching methods (Table 3). More pilot participants indicated that they agreed with the statement (StA, 5.00%; SoA, 50.00%) compared to non-participants (StA, 0.00%; SoA, 40.91%), and fewer participants neither agreed nor disagreed (participants, 30.00%; non-participants, 40.91%). The distribution of responses to this statement did not differ significantly.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of responses to the statement “I feel motivated to learn anatomy using the Anatomage table” among pilot participants and non-participants, a distribution that is significantly different between the two groups.

Content Retention Perspective

Four statements were included in survey 2 that focused on the perceived retention of material due to the integration of the Anatomage table. Overall, those who participated in the Anatomage Table Pilot were more likely to agree with the retention statements compared to non-participants (Table 2). In fact, only one statement—The Anatomage table helped me succeed on exams—showed any disagreement (SoD, 10.00%) among participants, a pattern not observed among non-participants.

Two of the statements focused on retention of course material, specifically the bones and muscles of the body. The distribution of responses varied significantly between participants and non-participants for the skeletal system (p = 0.039) but not for the muscular system (Table 3). Among participants, 55.00% strongly agreed, 30.00% somewhat agreed, 15.00% neither agreed nor disagreed, and none disagreed with the statement that the table aided them in learning the bones of the body (Fig. 3; Table 2). In comparison, non-participants had a wider range of responses with less in agreement with the statement. Among non-participants, 27.27% strongly agreed, 36.36% somewhat agreed, 22.73% neither agreed nor disagreed, 9.09% somewhat disagreed, and 4.55% strongly disagreed that the Anatomage table helped them learn the bones of the body. In comparison, the distribution of responses to The Anatomage table helped me learn the muscles of the body among participants and non-participants were similar (Table 2), outside of 13.64% of non-participants and 0.00% of participants disagreeing with the statement.

Fig. 3

Percentage of responses for anatomage table pilot project participants and non-participants for survey question: The anatomage table helped me learn the bones of the body

Figure 3 shows the distribution of responses to the statement “The Anatomage table helped me learn the bones of the body” among pilot participants and non-participants, a distribution that is significantly different between the two groups.

A notable pattern emerged for the statement The Anatomage table helped me contextualize structures in the body. While more pilot participants strongly agreed with the statement (60.00%) compared to non-participants (45.45%), no students who partook in the survey disagreed that using the table helped them contextualize anatomical structures.

For the final statement—The Anatomage Table helped me succeed on exams—25.00% and 45.00% of participants strongly and somewhat agreed with the statement compared to 13.64% and 36.36% of non-participants (Table 2). The percentage of respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement was twice as high among non-participants at 40.91% compared to 20.00% in participants. Both groups had some respondents disagree with the statement; 10.0% of participants somewhat disagreed, and 9.09% of non-participants strongly disagreed.