Student Perceived Value of Anatomy Pedagogy, Part I: Prosection or Dissection?

Abstract

A series of three annual surveys of David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) at UCLA students and UCR/UCLA Thomas Haider Program in Biomedical Sciences students were administered from 2010 to 2012 to ascertain student perceptions of which anatomy pedagogy-prosection or dissection-was most valuable to them during the first year of preclinical medical education and for the entire medical school experience in general. Students were asked, "What value does gross anatomy education have in preclinical medical education?" We further asked the students who participated in both prosection and dissection pedagogies, "Would you have preferred an anatomy curriculum like the Summer Anatomy Dissection during your first year in medical school instead of prosection?" All students who responded to the survey viewed anatomy as a highly valued part of the medical curriculum, specifically referring to four major themes: Anatomy is (1) the basis for medical understanding, (2) part of the overall medical school experience, (3) a bridge to understanding pathology and physiology, and (4) the foundation for clinical skills. Students who participated in both prosection and dissection pedagogies surprisingly and overwhelmingly advocated for a prosection curriculum for the first year of medical school, not a dissection curriculum. Time efficiency was the dominant theme in survey responses from students who learned anatomy through prosection and then dissection. Students, regardless of whether interested in surgery/radiology or not, appreciated both pedagogies but commented that prosection was sufficient for learning basic anatomy, while dissection was a necessary experience in preparation for the anatomical medical specialties. This suggests that anatomy instruction should be integrated into the clinical years of medical education.

Dissection in the Modern Medical Curriculum: An Exploration into Student Perception and Adaptions for the Future

“…To manage, students adopt strategic learning approaches that favor 'high-yield', time-efficient modalities at the expense of those that may be more comprehensive. The issue of the time-consuming nature of cadaveric dissection has been highlighted in previous studies (Dissabandara et al, 2015;Wisco et al, 2015).…”

Reconsidering laboratory‐based anatomy within the backdrop of digital transformation: Bringing an old practice into a new world

“…Despite existing evidence that student dissection affords little if any advantage over study from prosected specimens (Wisco et al, 2015;Aziz et al, 2019;Lackey-Cornelison, 2020) or technologically derived models (Fasel et al, 2016;McMillan et al, 2020;Frithioff et al, 2021), the act of dissection especially for novice first-year medical or other health professions students continues to hold a highly acclaimed position in the teaching and learning of anatomy (McMenamin et al, 2018;Wilson et al, 2019;Basavanna et al, 2022). Its claim, built solely on perceptions of students and teaching faculty appears to be marked by consistent indications of student anxiety, discomfort, and lack of confidence in their ability to meet expectations of high-quality outcomes.…”

Effectiveness of Pedagogical Tools for Teaching Medical Gross Anatomy During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Prosection has also been shown to be a very effective method of learning gross anatomy [ 19 ]. Some note that prosection is sufficient but dissection experience is necessary in preparation for the anatomical medical specialties [ 34 ]. Others claim that cadavers can be dispensed altogether and replaced by other contexts, such as an earlier introduction to medical imaging [ 18 ].…”