Analysis of immediate student outcomes following a change in gross anatomy laboratory teaching methodology*

Abstract

Students utilizing virtual dissection tables scored higher on laboratory examinations than students having models or cadavers. However, they displayed a similar testing competency in lecture examinations, suggesting a possible change in laboratory examination difficulty between the cohorts but a similar knowledge base. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term retention of student knowledge.

Second‐Year Nursing Students’ Retention of Gross Anatomical Knowledge

“…This perceived difficulty may be attributed to insufficient instructional time allotted for these courses (Davies et al, ; Al‐Modhefer and Roe, ; Durai et al, ), demographic factors (Logan et al, ; Doomernik et al, ), or prior knowledge of biology and approaches to learning (Bergman et al, ). Students may also be influenced by course delivery methods and teaching strategies (Davies et al, ), an excess reliance on self‐directed learning (McVicar et al, ), the use of laboratory and clinical environments, (Afsharpour et al, ; Günay and Kılınç, ), as well as individual instructor qualities and expertise (Al‐Modhefer and Roe, ). Despite the difficulties presented in anatomy education, the practical application of anatomy is essential for clinical decision‐making in nursing (Günay and Kılınç, ), a positive correlation was identified in other health disciplines between clinical knowledge and retention of bioscience concepts (Mayer et al, ).…”

“…To overcome the knowledge gap between theory and practice and improve bioscience knowledge acquisition and transfer in nursing, a number of intervention strategies have been employed. These strategies include but are not limited to, the introduction of laboratory and clinical experience (McVicar et al, ; Carter et al, ), dissection (Johnston et al, ), team‐teaching and kinesthetic learning (Wagner, ; Emke et al, ; Craft et al, ), active learning (Al‐Modhefer and Roe, ; Bakon et al, ; Emke et al, ; Craft et al, ), holistic and cooperative learning strategies (Hoke and Robbins, ), internet‐based learning, tutor in classroom or access to tutor, expert modeling (Kardong‐Edgren et al, ), alternate methods of teaching and learning, support of English as a second language, higher entry qualifications or previous academic achievement in science (Shulruf et al, ; Whyte et al, ; McVicar et al, ), continuous enforcement of anatomy knowledge (Nicoll and Butler, ), sufficient study time (Durai et al, ) and the use of teaching technology (Afsharpour et al, ; Alt‐Gehrman, ). Some of these interventions resulted in a significant improvement of bioscience knowledge in some studies (McVicar et al, ; Wagner, ) but not in others (Hoke and Robbins, ; Emke et al, ; Craft et al, ).…”

How Can We Show You, If You Can't See It? Trialing the Use of an Interactive Three‐Dimensional Micro‐CT Model in Medical Education

“…This interactivity allows the user to explore hard‐to‐reach features, including intraosseous structures, such as the paranasal sinuses, while still being able to rotate the model freely and explore the full extent of the structures and their surroundings. Using 3D computer models featuring virtual dissection in conjunction with traditional resources has previously been shown to enhance the learning of anatomy, as compared to using traditional resources alone (Peterson and Mlynarczyk, ; Afsharpour et al, ). However, as noted above, in the current study, the baseline level of gross anatomy knowledge in both the cohorts was low, and, as such, it is possible that students became disoriented when rotating the model and subsequently could not comprehend the sectional views that virtual dissection presents.…”

An Approach to Economic Evaluation in Undergraduate Anatomy Education

“…As such, contemporaneous effectiveness data were drawn from Wilson et al's (2018) meta‐analysis and the 29 articles cited in Losco et al's (2017) systematic review. These two papers were contemporary, but they did not include virtual dissection tables, therefore Afsharpour et al's (2018) comparison of this teaching approach with plastic models and dissection was used. This provided further effectiveness data on plastic models and dissection that was not included in Losco et al's (2017) or Wilson et al's (2018) review.…”

“…Effectiveness data were presented in different formats across each source (Losco et al, 2017; Afsharpour et al, 2018; Wilson et al, 2018; Chytas et al, 2019); therefore, a method was devised for uniformly summarizing the conclusions of each study. For each study, all teaching approaches were given an effectiveness rating out of five by initially assigning them to the midpoint of the scale (3/5), and then amending their scores to accommodate each paper's conclusion.…”