Several teaching resources are used to enhance the learning of anatomy. The purpose of this study was to examine the preference of medical students on the use of various resources to learn anatomy and their link to 12 learning outcomes. A selected response item questionnaire was administered that asked students to rank six laboratory teaching resources from most to least preferred, and rate how useful these six resources were towards achieving 12 learning outcomes. These learning outcomes covered many of the learning domains such as demonstrating an understanding of anatomy, visualizing structures, appreciating clinical correlations, and understanding anatomical variations. Medical students ranked cadaveric prosections paired with an active learning clinical tutorial as the highest rank and most useful resource for learning anatomy, followed by dissection videos, electronic resources, and printed material, followed by plastinated specimens and plastic models. Overall, cadaveric prosections were also rated as the most helpful teaching resource in achieving various learning outcomes. In conclusion, anatomy teachers should provide prosections coupled with clinical tutorials as well as electronic resources as students prefer these and think they help them learn anatomy. Future studies will investigate the impact of using these resources on students’ performance.

No abstract

The teaching of anatomy has for long been delivered through lectures and supplemented with practical sessions. Different institutions devise varies teaching methods to deliver the practical aspect of anatomy. Some of these methods are faculty‐led while others are more student‐led [1]. In this study we aimed to gather medical students' opinion on the various learning resources used to study anatomy, and link them to a number of learning outcomes. In addition, the study also aimed to assess the benefits of student‐led learning (SLL) and faculty‐led learning (SLL). First year medical students were invited to participate in this study. Information about the study was provided to the students and informed consent was obtained. In one practical session, student were divided into groups and were provided with a list of structures that they need to identify on prosections using the available resources. This was followed by a faculty led demonstration to identify the same list of structures. Students were then asked to complete a questionnaire at the end of the practical session. Anonymized data was collected and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS). This study was approved by the Social Research Ethics Committee at University College Cork.From the 86 registered students, 65 took part in this study yielding a 75% response rate. Cadaveric prosections (mean = 1.40, SD = 0.965) were deemed as the most preferred for learning anatomy with plastic models (mean = 4.51, SD = 1.252) as the least favored. Prosections (mean = 4.42) were again deemed as the most superior resource in achieving the majority of the devised set of learning outcomes, while plastinated specimens (mean = 2.10) were the least helpful resource. Prosections were highly ranked by the students as they provide hands‐on experience on a realistic specimen, appreciation of spatial relationships and 3D visualization of structures. A larger number of students (n = 53, 81.53%) agreed that the SLL sessions offered more “independent learning” and the sessions provided a comfortable environment. A majority (n = 53, 81.53%) indicated that the FLL sessions gave more “assistance in learning” with less accountability. The students felt less accountable during the FLL tutorials possibly because they didn't feel pressured in knowing and explaining the material because the information was presented to them by experts. With the clear benefits of SLL, further research is required to investigate the best way to integrate similar sessions in an anatomy practical.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.