Due to the current trend of decreasing contact hours and less emphasis being given to the basic science courses in the pre-clinical years of medical education, it is essential that new approaches to teaching gross anatomy are investigated to ensure medical students are being adequately exposed to anatomical content. This study retrospectively analyzed practical examination data from four medical gross anatomy classes (N = 569) to ascertain which pedagogical approach, student participation in the dissection process, or interaction with prosected specimens is best for teaching the anatomy of the hand and foot. Data analysis involved the use of propensity score matching, a nonparametric preprocessing statistical approach which ensures accurate representation of the true treatment effect by balancing cohorts prior to statistical analysis. Statistical analysis indicated that those students who were exposed to the anatomy of the hand through interactions with prosected specimens performed 5.6% better (P= 0.012) while for the foot, students who interacted with prosections performed 13.0% better (P< 0.001). Although limited, data from this study suggest that utilizing prosections of the hand and foot seems to be a more advantageous pedagogical approach for teaching these regions than requiring students to dissect them.
Student struggles in gross anatomy coursework at the professional level can result in hours of remediation along with a need to allot time and other resources by both the student and the faculty. Since this course typically occurs in the first semester of the first year, programs can turn to admissions data to try to determine which of these students may struggle. This study looked at two years of medical (n = 280) and dental (n = 78) students to determine if there is a relationship between pre‐admissions anatomy coursework and performance in gross anatomy at the professional school level. Students provided data regarding their past anatomy coursework and final grades in professional school gross anatomy courses were obtained. In addition, students responded to questions regarding their feelings of preparation and how they valued the prior anatomy coursework as it related to the professional course. Statistical analysis showed no difference in final course grade between students with and without prior anatomy in either program. Counter to the numerical data, 96.6% of the students in the study recommended an anatomy course prior to pursuing a health science degree. The primary reasons given for this recommendation were the benefits of repeated content exposure, knowledge of the anatomy terminology, and decreased stress regarding the course. The results from this study suggest that the benefits of prior anatomy may be seen more in the students’ stress and quality of life rather in the numerical performance of course grades.
Cadaveric dissection in gross anatomy courses has long been considered the gold‐standard for instruction, but the difficulty associated with some dissections may lead to negative learning outcomes for those students adversely impacted by dissection experiences. Therefore, this investigative study aimed to identify medical students' perception of the difficulty associated with each dissection completed during a 16‐week medical gross anatomy course. The purpose of this study was to provide better insight into the relationship between the difficulty associated with dissecting anatomical regions and student performance on practical examination questions pertaining to those regions. To answer this question, 10‐point Likert scale surveys with values ranging from 1 (easy) to 10 (difficult) were utilized to ascertain the perceived difficulty of each dissection completed during the course. The surveys were distributed to the students (n=160) prior to each of the block examinations given throughout the course. Following collection of the difficulty surveys, student responses were analyzed in order to determine if any of the dissections were rated as significantly more or less difficult than others. Difficulty rankings were also compared to previously collected data from the same course to determine if there is a relationship between the difficulties associated with dissecting each region, and how medical students have historically performed on questions pertaining to each region analyzed. Preliminary results indicate that medical students' perception of the difficulty associated with completing different dissections varies significantly. The average perceived difficulty of the dissections was 4.6 (SD=2.3), the minimum mean dissection difficulty reported was 2.9 (SD=2.0) and corresponded to the knee dissection, while the maximum mean dissection difficulty reported was 7.5 (SD=2.3) and corresponded to the axilla dissection. Concurrently, results from the difficulty survey were compared to historical records of medical student performance on practical examination questions. Preliminary results from these comparisons seem to indicate a relationship between the difficulty associated with dissecting anatomical regions and the ability of medical students to learn structures related to the dissection. Students have historically performed worse on practical examination questions pertaining to structures from difficult dissections and better on questions pertaining to structures from easy dissections. As such, it is important for anatomy educators to consider the difficulty of each dissection they require their students to complete, and the potential impact each dissection has on the students' ability to learn the material.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.