Anatomy Learning from Prosected Cadaveric Specimens Versus Plastic Models: A Comparative Study of Upper Limb Anatomy

被引:27
作者
Mitrousias, Vasileios [1 ]
Karachalios, Theofilos S. [2 ]
Varitimidis, Sokratis E. [2 ]
Natsis, Konstantinos [3 ]
Arvanitis, Dimitrios L. [1 ]
Zibis, Aristeidis H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Thessaly, Dept Anat, Fac Med, Panepistim 3st Biopolis, Larisa 41110, Greece
[2] Univ Thessaly, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Fac Med, Larisa, Greece
[3] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Dept Anat & Surg Anat, Sch Med, Fac Hlth & Sci, Thessaloniki, Greece
关键词
gross anatomy education; medical education; undergraduate education; anatomy teaching; prosection; plastic models; MEDICAL-STUDENTS; TEACHING ANATOMY; GROSS-ANATOMY; EDUCATIONAL VALUE; BLOOMS TAXONOMY; DISSECTION; PERCEPTIONS; SCHOOL; STANDARDS; ATTITUDES;
D O I
10.1002/ase.1911
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Human cadaveric prosections are a traditional, effective, and highly appreciated modality of anatomy learning. Plastic models are an alternative teaching modality, though few studies examine their effectiveness in learning of upper limb musculoskeletal anatomy. The purpose of this study is to investigate which modality is associated with a better outcome, as assessed by students' performance on examinations. Overall, 60 undergraduate medical students without previous knowledge of anatomy participated in the study. Students were assigned into two groups. Group 1 attended lectures and studied from cadaveric prosections (n = 30) and Group 2 attended lectures and used plastic models in the laboratory (n = 30). A knowledge assessment, including examination with tag questions (spot test) and written multiple-choice questions, was held after the end of the study. Students' perceptions were also investigated via an anonymous questionnaire. No significant difference in students' performance was observed between the group using prosections and the group using plastic models (32.2 +/- 14.7 vs 35.0 +/- 14.8, respectively; P = 0.477). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was found regarding students' satisfaction from using each learning modality (P = 0.441). Plastic models may be a valuable supplementary modality in learning upper limb musculoskeletal anatomy, despite their limitations. Easy to use and with no need for maintaining facilities, they are highly appreciated by students and can be useful when preparing for the use of cadaveric specimens.
引用
收藏
页码:436 / 444
页数:9
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]   Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives [J].
Adams, Nancy E. .
JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2015, 103 (03) :152-153
[2]   Specialist anatomy: Is the structure of teaching adequate? [J].
Ahmed, Kamran ;
Rowland, Simon ;
Patel, Vanash M. ;
Ashrafian, Hutan ;
Davies, D. Ceri ;
Darzi, Ara ;
Athanasiou, Thanos ;
Paraskeva, Paraskevas A. .
SURGEON-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGES OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH AND IRELAND, 2011, 9 (06) :312-317
[3]   Is the structure of anatomy curriculum adequate for safe medical practice? [J].
Ahmed, Kamran ;
Rowland, Simon ;
Patel, Vanash ;
Khan, Reenam S. ;
Ashrafian, Hutan ;
Davies, David Ceri ;
Darzi, Ara ;
Athanasiou, Thanos ;
Paraskeva, Paraskevas A. .
SURGEON-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGES OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH AND IRELAND, 2010, 8 (06) :318-324
[4]  
[Anonymous], COLOR ATLAS HUMAN AN
[5]   When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer [J].
Barnett, SM ;
Ceci, SJ .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 2002, 128 (04) :612-637
[6]   A Three-Year Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study of Medical Students' Attitudes Toward Anatomy Teaching and Their Career Aspirations [J].
Bhangu, Aneel ;
Boutefnouchet, Tarek ;
Yong, Xu ;
Abrahams, Peter ;
Joplin, Ruth .
ANATOMICAL SCIENCES EDUCATION, 2010, 3 (04) :184-190
[7]  
Bob MH, 2015, ROM J MORPHOL EMBRYO, V56, P321
[8]  
Cahill DR, 2000, CLIN ANAT, V13, P150, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(2000)13:2<150::AID-CA12>3.0.CO
[9]  
2-V
[10]   An Analysis of the Educational Value of Low-Fidelity Anatomy Models as External Representations [J].
Chan, Lap Ki ;
Cheng, Maurice M. W. .
ANATOMICAL SCIENCES EDUCATION, 2011, 4 (05) :256-263