The COVID-19 pandemic caused nearly ubiquitous emergency remote teaching in both secondary and post-secondary education. While there has been a plethora of work examining how instructors adjusted classes to incorporate active learning during emergency remote teaching, there has only been minimal work examining how such emergency remote teaching may have influenced students’ perceptions of active learning. Here, we conduct a longitudinal multi-cohort study at one institution across nine semesters before, during, and after emergency remote teaching due to the pandemic to explore how college students’ familiarity and perceptions of active learning have shifted over time because of the pandemic. Our results reveal decreases in familiarity with active learning during emergency remote teaching, with familiarity remaining lower than pre-COVID even after the end of emergency remote teaching. In addition, our results indicate shifts in students’ perceptions of active learning, leading to potentially higher student resistance to active learning following emergency remote teaching. We conclude by discussing implications for instructors to better support active learning and promote engagement in active learning classes following the end of emergency remote teaching.
AllenD.TannerK. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113
2.
AndrewsM. E.GrahamM.PrinceM.BorregoM.FinelliC. J.HusmanJ. (2020). Student resistance to active learning: Do instructors (mostly) get it wrong?Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 25(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2020.1861771
3.
AndrewsT. C.AuerbachA. J. J.GrantE. F. (2019). Exploring the relationship between teacher knowledge and active-learning implementation in large college biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar48. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-01-0010
4.
AndrewsT. M.LeonardM. J.ColgroveC. A.KalinowskiS. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
5.
ArmbrusterP.PatelM.JohnsonE.WeissM. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025
6.
BaldockB. L.FernandezA. L.FrancoJ.ProvencherB. A.McCoyM. R. (2021). Overcoming the challenges of remote instruction: Using mobile technology to promote active learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(3), 833–842. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00992
7.
BallenC. J.WiemanC.SalehiS.SearleJ. B.ZamudioK. R. (2017). Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(4), ar56. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344
8.
BawaP. (2020). Learning in the age of SARS-COV-2: A quantitative study of learners’ performance in the age of emergency remote teaching. Computers and Education Open, 1, 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2020.100016
9.
BusseyT. J.OrgillM.CrippenK. J. (2013). Variation theory: A theory of learning and a useful theoretical framework for chemical education research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 9–22.
10.
Carrasco-HernándezA.Lozano-ReinaG.Lucas-PérezM. E.Madrid-GarreM. F.Sánchez-MarínG. (2023). Impact of an emergency remote teaching model on students’ academic performance during COVID-19. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09665-7
11.
CavanaghA. J.AragónO. R.ChenX.CouchB. A.DurhamM. F.BobrownickiA.HanauerD. I.GrahamM. J. (2016). Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar76. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0212
12.
ChiM. T. H.WylieR. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
13.
ClintonV.KellyA. E. (2020a). Improving student attitudes toward discussion boards using a brief motivational intervention. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 6(4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000160
14.
ClintonV.KellyA. E. (2020b). Student attitudes toward group discussions. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417740277
CooperK. M.AshleyM.BrownellS. E. (2017). Using expectancy value theory as a framework to reduce student resistance to active learning: A proof of concept. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(2), 18.2.20. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1289
DaoukZ.BahousR.BachaN. N. (2016). Perceptions on the effectiveness of active learning strategies. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 8(3), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-05-2015-0037
19.
DeslauriersL.McCartyL. S.MillerK.CallaghanK.KestinG. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
20.
DouR.BreweE.PotvinG.ZwolakJ. P.HazariZ. (2018). Understanding the development of interest and self-efficacy in active-learning undergraduate physics courses. International Journal of Science Education, 40(13), 1587–1605. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1488088
21.
DriessenE. P.KnightJ. K.SmithM. K.BallenC. J. (2020). Demystifying the meaning of active learning in postsecondary biology education. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(4), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0068
22.
DurhamM.ColclasureB.BrooksT. D. (2022). Experience with scientific teaching in face-to-face settings promoted usage of evidence-based practices during emergency remote teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(4), ar78. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-03-0049
23.
EcclesJ. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In SpenceJ. T. (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp.75–146). Free Man.
EnglandB. J.BrigatiJ. R.SchusslerE. E.ChenM. M. (2019). Student anxiety and perception of difficulty impact performance and persistence in introductory biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar21. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0284
26.
EstradaM.WoodcockA.HernandezP. R.SchultzP. W. (2011). Toward a model of social influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020743
27.
FabrizS.MendzheritskayaJ.StehleS. (2021). Impact of synchronous and asynchronous settings of online teaching and learning in higher education on students’ learning experience during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 733554https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.733554
28.
FreelonD. (2013). ReCal OIR: Ordinal, interval, and ratio intercoder reliability as a web service. International Journal of Internet Science, 8(1), 10–16.
29.
FreemanS.EddyS. L.McDonoughM.SmithM. K.OkoroaforN.JordtH.WenderothM. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesUSA, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
30.
FreemanS.HaakD.WenderothM. P. (2011). Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105
31.
GonsarN.PatrickL.CotnerS. (2021). Graduate- and undergraduate-student perceptions of and preferences for teaching practices in STEM classrooms. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 3(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00035-w
32.
GuoS. (2020). Synchronous versus asynchronous online teaching of physics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Physics Education, 55(6), 065007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aba1c5
33.
HaakD. C.HilleRisLambersJ.PitreE.FreemanS. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820
34.
HeffernanA.MurphyM. P. A.YearwoodD. (2022). Can active learning be asynchronous? Implementing online peer review assignments in undergraduate political science and international relations courses. European Political Science, 21(4), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-022-00386-6
35.
HendersonC.KhanR.DancyM. (2018). Will my student evaluations decrease if I adopt an active learning instructional strategy?American Journal of Physics, 86(12), 934–942. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5065907
HoodS.BarrickmanN.DjerdjianN.FarrM.MagnerS.RoychowdhuryH.GerritsR.LawfordH.OttB.RossK.PaigeO.StoweS.JensenM.HullK. (2021). “I like and prefer to work alone”: Social anxiety, academic self-efficacy, and students’ perceptions of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(1), ar12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-12-0271
38.
HoraM. T.FerrareJ. J. (2013). Instructional systems of practice: A multidimensional analysis of math and science undergraduate course planning and classroom teaching. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 212–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.729767
39.
HsuJ. L.GoldsmithG. R. (2021). Instructor strategies to alleviate stress and anxiety among college and university STEM students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(1), es1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-08-0189
40.
HsuJ. L.Rowland-GoldsmithM. (2021). Student perceptions of an inquiry-based molecular biology lecture and lab following a mid-semester transition to online teaching. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 49(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21478
41.
HsuJ. L.Rowland-GoldsmithM.SchwartzE. B. (2022). Student motivations and barriers toward online and in-person office hours in STEM courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(4), ar68. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-03-0048
42.
Iglesias-PradasS.Hernández-GarcíaÁ.Chaparro-PeláezJ.PrietoJ. L. (2021). Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 106713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106713
43.
KimK.SharmaP.LandS. M.FurlongK. P. (2013). Effects of active learning on enhancing student critical thinking in an undergraduate general science course. Innovative Higher Education, 38(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9236-x
44.
KresslerB.KresslerJ. (2020). Diverse student perceptions of active learning in a large enrollment STEM course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 20(1), 40–64. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v20i1.24688.
45.
KvamP. H. (2000). The effect of active learning methods on student retention in engineering statistics. The American Statistician, 54(2), 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474526
46.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977a). An application of hierarchical Kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
47.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977b). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
LemelinC.GrossC. D.BertholetR.GaresS.HallM.HeneinH. . . . HaaveN. (2021). Mitigating student resistance to active learning by constructing resilient classrooms. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 47(2), 3.
50.
LiuX.YangY.HoJ. W. (2022). Students sense of belonging and academic performance via online PBL: A case study of a university in Hong Kong during quarantine. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1495. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031495
51.
LoS. M.GardnerG. E.ReidJ.Napoleon-FanisV.CarrollP.SmithE.SatoB. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE—Life Sciences Education and at the society for the advancement of biology education research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164
52.
LumpkinA.AchenR. M.DoddR. K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49(1), 121–133.
53.
MachemerP. L.CrawfordP. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787407074008
54.
MajorJ. C.KirnA. (2017, June24–28). Engineering identity and project-based learning: How does active learning develop student engineering identity? [Conference session]. 2017 ASEE annual conference & exposition, Columbus, Ohio.
55.
McCartneyM.RoddyA. B.GeigerJ.PilandN. C.RibeiroM. M.LainoffA. (2022). Seeing yourself as a scientist: Increasing science identity using professional development modules designed for undergraduate students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23(1), e00346-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00346-21
56.
McCourtJ. S.AndrewsT. C.KnightJ. K.MerrillJ. E.NehmR. H.PelletreauK. N.PrevostL. B.SmithM. K.Urban-LurainM.LemonsP. P. (2017). What motivates biology instructors to engage and persist in teaching professional development?CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(3), ar54. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0241
57.
McPartlanP.ThomanD. B.PoeJ., AHerreraF.SmithJ. L. (2022). Appealing to faculty gatekeepers: Motivational processes for intentions to adopt an evidence-b ased intervention. BioScience, 72(7), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac029
58.
MeltzerL. J.SaletinJ. M.HonakerS. M.OwensJ. A.SeixasA.WahlstromK. L.WolfsonA. R.WongP.CarskadonM. A. (2021). COVID-19 instructional approaches (in-person, online, hybrid), school start times, and sleep in over 5,000 U.S. adolescents. Sleep, 44(12), zsab180. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsab180
MillerC. J.MetzM. J. (2014). A comparison of professional-level faculty and student perceptions of active learning: Its current use, effectiveness, and barriers. Advances in Physiology Education, 38(3), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00014.2014
61.
MoorhouseB. L.KohnkeL. (2021). Thriving or surviving emergency remote teaching necessitated by COVID-19: University teachers’ perspectives. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(3), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00567-9
62.
MorrisonE. S.Naro-MacielE.BonneyK. M. (2021). Innovation in a time of crisis: Adapting active learning approaches for remote biology courses. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(1), ev22i1.2341. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2341
63.
MoudgalyaS. K.MayfieldC.YadavA.HuH. H.KussmaulC. (2021, March13–20). Measuring students’ sense of belonging in introductory CS courses [Conference session]. 52nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education [Symposium] (pp. 445–451). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432425
64.
NguyenK. A.BorregoM.FinelliC. J.DeMonbrunM.CrockettC.TharayilS.ShekharP.WatersC.RosenbergR. (2021). Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7
65.
NicholsS. C.XiaY. Y.ParcoM.BaileyE. G. (2022). Participation and performance by gender in synchronous online lectures: Three unique case studies during emergency remote teaching. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23(1), e00281-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00281-21
66.
NugentM. L. (2019). Moving beyond performance: A mixed-methods examination of student perceptions regarding active learning events in an introductory biology course [Ph.D., North Carolina State University. North Carolina State University. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2384819278/abstract/171DF401867B4E1APQ/1
67.
OliveraJ. (2022). The perceived impact of project-based learning (PBL) on middle school students’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) identity and engagement [Theses and Dissertations]. Hunter College, City University of New York. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/hc_sas_etds/938
68.
OwensD. C.SadlerT. D.BarlowA. T.Smith-WaltersC. (2020). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1
69.
PanaderoE.FraileJ.PinedoL.Rodríguez-HernándezC.DíezF. (2022). Changes in classroom assessment practices during emergency remote teaching due to COVID-19. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 29(3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2067123
70.
PatrickL. E. (2020). Faculty and student perceptions of active learning. In MintzesJ. J.WalterE. M. (Eds.), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice (pp. 889–907). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_55
RaglandE. C.RadcliffeS.KarcherE. L. (2023). A review of the application of active learning pedagogies in undergraduate animal science curricula. Journal of Animal Science, 101, skac352. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac352
73.
Reyes-RojasJ.SánchezJ. (2022). How prepared was the world for emergency distance learning in K-12 education? A literature review. In ZaphirisP.IoannouA. (Eds.), Learning and collaboration technologies. Designing the learner and teacher experience (pp. 289–303). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05657-4_21
74.
RhollD. A.CheepthamN.LalA.KleinschmitA. J.ParksS. T.MestrovicT. (2023). Making it matter: Increasing student-perceived value of microbiology through reflective and critical news story analysis. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(1), e00163-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00163-22
75.
SeidelS. B.ReggiA. L.SchinskeJ. N.BurrusL. W.TannerK. D. (2015). Beyond the biology: A systematic investigation of noncontent instructor talk in an introductory biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar43. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-03-0049
76.
ShekharP.BorregoM.DeMonbrunM.FinelliC.CrockettC.NguyenK. (2020). Negative student response to active learning in STEM classrooms: A systematic review of underlying reasons. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(6), 45–54.
77.
ShimT. E.LeeS. Y. (2020). College students’ experience of emergency remote teaching due to COVID-19. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578
78.
SingerA.MontgomeryG.SchmollS. (2020). How to foster the formation of STEM identity: Studying diversity in an authentic learning environment. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00254-z
79.
SinghalM. K. (2020). Facilitating virtual medicinal chemistry active learning assignments using advanced zoom features during COVID-19 campus closure. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2711–2714. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00675
80.
SmithC. V.CardaciottoL. (2011). Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 53–61.
81.
SpitzerM. W. H.GutsfeldR.WirzbergerM.MoellerK. (2021). Evaluating students’ engagement with an online learning environment during and after COVID-19 related school closures: A survival analysis approach. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 25, 100168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2021.100168
82.
StainsM.HarshmanJ.BarkerM. K.ChasteenS. V.ColeR.DeChenne-PetersS. E.EaganM. K.Jr.EssonJ. M.KnightJ. K.LaskiF. A.Levis-FitzgeraldM.LeeC. J.LoS. M.McDonnellL. M.McKayT. A.MichelottiN.MusgroveA.PalmerM. S.PlankK. M. . . . YoungA. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892
83.
StantonJ. D.SebestaA. J.DunloskyJ. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(2), fe3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289
84.
StarrC. R.HunterL.DunkinR.HonigS.PalominoR.LeaperC. (2020). Engaging in science practices in classrooms predicts increases in undergraduates’ STEM motivation, identity, and achievement: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1093–1118. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21623
85.
StyersM. L.Van ZandtP. A.HaydenK. L. (2018). Active learning in flipped life science courses promotes development of critical thinking skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(3), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-11-0332
86.
TharayilS.BorregoM.PrinceM.NguyenK. A.ShekharP.FinelliC. J.WatersC. (2018). Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y
87.
TheobaldE. J.HillM. J.TranE.AgrawalS.ArroyoE. N.BehlingS.ChambweN.CintrónD. L.CooperJ. D.DunsterG.GrummerJ. A.HennesseyK.HsiaoJ.IranonN.JonesL.JordtH.KellerM.LaceyM. E.LittlefieldC. E. . . . FreemanS. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
88.
TrujilloG.TannerK. D. (2014). Considering the role of affect in learning: Monitoring students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and science identity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0241
89.
TsangA.HarrisD. M. (2016). Faculty and second-year medical student perceptions of active learning in an integrated curriculum. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(4), 446–453. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00079.2016
90.
Van AmburghJ. A.DevlinJ. W.KirwinJ. L.QualtersD. M. (2007). A tool for measuring active learning in the classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(5), 85.
91.
VentonB. J.PompanoR. R. (2021). Strategies for enhancing remote student engagement through active learning. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 413(6), 1507–1512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03159-0
92.
WalshL. L.Arango-CaroS.WesterE. R.Callis-DuehlK. (2021). Training faculty as an institutional response to COVID-19 emergency remote teaching supported by data. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(3), ar34. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0277
93.
WesterE. R.WalshL. L.Arango-CaroS.Callis-DuehlK. L. (2021). Student engagement declines in STEM undergraduates during COVID-19–driven remote learning. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(1), ev22i1.2385. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2385
94.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
95.
WigginsB. L.EddyS. L.Wener-FlignerL.FreisemK.GrunspanD. Z.TheobaldE. J.TimbrookJ.CroweA. J. (2017). ASPECT: A survey to assess student perspective of engagement in an active-learning classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar32. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0244
96.
WilhelmJ.MattinglyS.GonzalezV. H. (2022). Perceptions, satisfactions, and performance of undergraduate students during Covid-19 emergency remote teaching. Anatomical Sciences Education, 15(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2161
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
