The impact of alternating dissection on student performance in a medical anatomy course: Are dissection videos an effective substitute for actual dissection?

Clinical Anatomy

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 315-321

  Granger, Noelle A ^a,c   Calleson, Diane ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b IL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Alternating dissection; Anatomical dissection; Reciprocal peer teaching

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CURRICULUM; DISSECTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; MEDICAL STUDENT; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; SCORING SYSTEM; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEACHING; UNITED STATES; VIDEORECORDING; EDUCATION PROGRAM; EXAMINATION; MEDICAL EDUCATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; ANATOMY; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; CURRICULUM; DISSECTION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 33947137629     PISSN: 08973806     EISSN: 10982353     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ca.20359     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Cottam WW. 1999. Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors. Clin Anat 12:55-65.
2. Drake RL. 1998. Anatomy education in a changing medical curriculum. Anat Rec 253:28-31.
3. Drake RL, Lowrie DJ Jr, Prewitt CM. 2002. Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec 269:118-122.
4. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. 2001. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet 357:363-364.
5. Johnson JH. 2002. Importance of dissection in learning anatomy: Personal dissection versus peer teaching. Clin Anat 15:38-44.
6. Krych AJ, March CN, Bryan RE, Peake BJ, Pawlina W, Carmichael SW. 2005. Reciprocal peer teaching: Students teaching students in the gross anatomy laboratory. Clin Anat 18:296-301.
7. Marks SC Jr. 2000. The role of three-dimensional information in health care and medical education: The implications for anatomy and dissection. Clin Anat 13:448-452.
8. Mathewson JH. 1999. Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Sci Educ 83:33-54.
9. McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. 2004. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ 38:418-424.
10. Miller R. 2000. Approaches to learning spatial relationships in gross anatomy: Perspective from wider principles of learning. Clin Anat 13:439-443.
11. Mutyala S, Cahill DR. 1996. Catching up. Clin Anat 9:53-56.
12. Preacher KJ. 2003. Calculation for the Chi-squared-test: An interactive calculation tool for Chi-squared-tests of goodness of fit and independence. URL: www.unc.edu~preacher/chisq/chisq.htm.
13. Preacher KJ, Briggs N. 2003. Calculation for Fisher's exact test: An interactive calculation tool for Fisher's exact probability test for 2 × 2 tables. URL: www.unc.edu/~preacher/fisher/fisher.htm.
14. Rochford K. 1985. Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Med Educ 19:13-26.
15. Sandra A, Ferguson KJ. 1998. Analysis of gross anatomy laboratory performance using a student dissection/presentation teaching method. Teach Learn Med 10:158-161.
16. Stanford W, Erkonen WE, Cassell MD, Moran BD, Easley G, Carris RL, Albanese MA. 1994. Evaluation of a computer-based program for teaching cardiac anatomy. Invest Radiol 29:248-252.
17. Yeager VL. 1996. Learning gross anatomy: Dissection and prosection. Clin Anat 9:57-59.