Anat Cell Biol.  2019 Mar;52(1):69-75. 10.5115/acb.2019.52.1.69.

Effects of alternate dissection on anatomy learning

• Kim DH
• Shin DH
• Hwang YI

• KMID: 2442331
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5115/acb.2019.52.1.69

Abstract

To address the problems associated with crowding in dissection laboratory, especially for dissections of the head and neck region, we adopted an alternate dissection strategy and explored its effects on student learning, and student perceptions of the approach. The alternate dissection approach was first introduced at our institution for dissection of the head and neck region in 2014, and was expanded to encompass the extremities in 2016. A survey on student perceptions of this new strategy was conducted at the end of anatomical courses held from 2014 to 2016, and practical and written examination scores from 2013 to 2016 were analyzed. The results showed that student perceptions were largely positive and became increasingly so each year. However, there was still some anxiety among the students regarding regions that they did not dissect themselves. Despite this, the alternate dissection strategy did not influence practical examination scores, with the exception of a transient decrease in 2014, i.e., the first year of implementation. Moreover, written examination scores improved both for the extremities and the head and neck regions in 2016. The alternate dissection strategy described herein solved the crowding problem in the dissection laboratory at our institution and had no negative effects on student learning outcomes. Therefore, this type of approach can be used to improve efficiency in dissection laboratories.

Keyword

Gross anatomy; Anatomy education; Cadaver dissection; Alternate dissection

MeSH Terms

Anxiety
Crowding
Extremities
Head
Humans
Learning*
Neck

Reference

1. Marks SC Jr. The role of three-dimensional information in health care and medical education: the implications for anatomy and dissection. Clin Anat. 2000; 13:448–452. PMID: 11111898.

2. Granger NA. Dissection laboratory is vital to medical gross anatomy education. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2004; 281:6–8. PMID: 15558779.

3. Rizzolo LJ, Stewart WB. Should we continue teaching anatomy by dissection when...? Anat Rec B New Anat. 2006; 289:215–218. PMID: 17109419.

4. Korf HW, Wicht H, Snipes RL, Timmermans JP, Paulsen F, Rune G, Baumgart-Vogt E. The dissection course: necessary and indispensable for teaching anatomy to medical students. Ann Anat. 2008; 190:16–22. PMID: 18342138.

5. Papa V, Vaccarezza M. Teaching anatomy in the XXI century: new aspects and pitfalls. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013; 2013:310348. PMID: 24367240.

6. Pizzimenti MA, Pantazis N, Sandra A, Hoffmann DS, Lenoch S, Ferguson KJ. Dissection and dissection-associated required experiences improve student performance in gross anatomy: Differences among quartiles. Anat Sci Educ. 2016; 9:238–246. PMID: 26536279.

7. Cho MJ, Hwang YI. Students' perception of anatomy education at a Korean medical college with respect to time and contents. Anat Cell Biol. 2013; 46:157–162. PMID: 23869263.

8. Sheikh AH, Barry DS, Gutierrez H, Cryan JF, O'Keeffe GW. Cadaveric anatomy in the future of medical education: What is the surgeons view? Anat Sci Educ. 2016; 9:203–208. PMID: 26213365.

9. Fillmore EP, Brokaw JJ, Kochhar K, Nalin PM. Understanding the current anatomical competence landscape: comparing perceptions of program directors, residents, and fourth-year medical students. Anat Sci Educ. 2016; 9:307–318. PMID: 26632977.

10. Association of American Medical Colleges. Physicians for the twenty-first century. The GPEP report: report of the panel on the general professional education of the physician and college preparation for medicine [Internet]. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges;1984. cited 2017 Nov 30. Available from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED252102.pdf.

11. Gartner LP. Anatomical sciences in the allopathic medical school curriculum in the United States between 1967-2001. Clin Anat. 2003; 16:434–439. PMID: 12903066.

12. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2:253–259. PMID: 19890982.

13. Craig S, Tait N, Boers D, McAndrew D. Review of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools. ANZ J Surg. 2010; 80:212–216. PMID: 20575945.

14. Hwang YI. Analysis of anatomy education in Korean medical schools. In : Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of Korean Association of Anatomists; 2009 Oct 22-23; Daegu, Korea. Seoul: Korean Association of Anatomists;2009. p. 53.

15. Lee WB, Baik SH. Analysis of anatomy curricula of twenty-nine medical colleges in Korea. Korean J Med Educ. 1990; 2:42–50.

16. Yeager VL. Learning gross anatomy: dissection and prosection. Clin Anat. 1996; 9:57–59. PMID: 8838283.

17. Johnson JH. Importance of dissection in learning anatomy: personal dissection versus peer teaching. Clin Anat. 2002; 15:38–44. PMID: 11835543.

18. Nnodim JO. A controlled trial of peer-teaching in practical gross anatomy. Clin Anat. 1997; 10:112–117. PMID: 9058018.

19. Sandra A, Ferguson KJ. Analysis of gross anatomy laboratory performance using a student dissection/presentation teaching method. Teach Learn Med. 1998; 10:158–161.

20. Bentley BS, Hill RV. Objective and subjective assessment of reciprocal peer teaching in medical gross anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2:143–149. PMID: 19637291.

21. McWhorter DL, Forester JP. Effects of an alternate dissection schedule on gross anatomy laboratory practical performance. Clin Anat. 2004; 17:144–148. PMID: 14974103.

22. Kerby J, Shukur ZN, Shalhoub J. The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by medical students. Clin Anat. 2011; 24:489–497. PMID: 20949485.

23. Granger NA, Calleson D. The impact of alternating dissection on student performance in a medical anatomy course: are dissection videos an effective substitute for actual dissection? Clin Anat. 2007; 20:315–321. PMID: 16795027.

24. Marshak DW, Oakes J, Hsieh PH, Chuang AZ, Cleary LJ. Outcomes of a rotational dissection system in gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2015; 8:438–444. PMID: 25358463.

25. Bland CJ, Starnaman S, Wersal L, Moorehead-Rosenberg L, Zonia S, Henry R. Curricular change in medical schools: how to succeed. Acad Med. 2000; 75:575–594. PMID: 10875502.

26. Ho MJ, Lin CW, Chiu YT, Lingard L, Ginsburg S. A cross-cultural study of students' approaches to professional dilemmas: sticks or ripples. Med Educ. 2012; 46:245–256. PMID: 22324524.

27. Bruno PA, Love Green JK, Illerbrun SL, Holness DA, Illerbrun SJ, Haus KA, Poirier SM, Sveinson KL. Students helping students: Evaluating a pilot program of peer teaching for an undergraduate course in human anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2016; 9:132–142. PMID: 26060978.

28. Manyama M, Stafford R, Mazyala E, Lukanima A, Magele N, Kidenya BR, Kimwaga E, Msuya S, Kauki J. Improving gross anatomy learning using reciprocal peer teaching. BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16:95. PMID: 27000752.

29. Weiss MJ, Bhanji F, Fontela PS, Razack SI. A preliminary study of the impact of a handover cognitive aid on clinical reasoning and information transfer. Med Educ. 2013; 47:832–841. PMID: 23837430.