The most effective method to teach gross anatomy is largely unknown. This study examined two teaching methods utilized in a physical therapy and occupational therapy gross anatomy course, (1) alternating dissection with peer teaching every other laboratory session and (2) faculty demonstrations during laboratory sessions. Student (n = 57) subgroup (A or B) academic performance was determined using written, laboratory practical, and palpation practical examinations. Subgroup A performed significantly better on laboratory practical examination questions pertaining to dissected, in comparison to peer-taught structures (67.1% vs. 60.2%, P = 0.008). Subgroup B performed significantly better on laboratory practical examination questions pertaining to peer-taught, in comparison to dissected structures (64.1% vs. 57.9%, P = 0.001). When Subgroup A was compared to Subgroup B, there were no statistically significant differences on laboratory practical examination question types, whether the subgroup learned the structure through dissection or peer teaching. Based on within and between subgroup comparisons, faculty demonstrations had no effect on written, laboratory practical, or palpation practical examination scores. Although limited, data suggest that the student roles when alternating dissection with peer teaching every other laboratory session appear to be equally effective for learning gross anatomy. The benefits of this method include decreased student/faculty ratio in laboratory sessions and increased time for independent study. Faculty demonstrations during laboratory sessions do not seem to improve student academic performance.Anat Sci Educ 12: 468-477.