Assessing Student‐Led Learning in an Anatomy Practical: Students' Perception

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.