An investigation into medical students' approaches to anatomy learning in a systems-based prosection course

Clinical Anatomy

Volumn 20, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 843-848

  Smith, Claire France ^a   Mathias, Haydn ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anatomical education; Approaches to learning; Assessment; Medical curriculum

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CURRICULUM; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL STUDENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STAFF;

ANATOMY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; HUMANS; LEARNING; STUDENTS, MEDICAL;

EID: 35148880044     PISSN: 08973806     EISSN: 10982353     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ca.20530     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Biggs J. 2003. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press.
2. Dinsmore CE, Daugherty S, Zeitz HJ. 1999. Teaching and learning gross anatomy: Dissection, prosection, or "both of the above?". Clin Anat 12:110-114.
3. Ellis H. 2001. Teaching in the dissecting room. Clin Anat 14:149-151.
4. Ellis H. 2002. Medico-legal litigation and its links with surgical anatomy. Surgery 20;8:i-ii.
5. Entwistle NJ. 2006. Approaches to study skills inventory for students. Enhancing teaching and learning project. URL: http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/ publications.html#measurement [accessed October 2006].
6. Francis NR, Lewis W. 2001. What price dissection? Dissection literally dissected. J Med Humanit 27:2-9.
7. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. 2001. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet 357:363-364.
8. General Medical Council. 2003. Tomorrow's Doctors: Recommendations on Undergraduate Medical Education. London: General Medical Council Publications.
9. Granger NA. 2004. Dissection laboratory is vital to medical gross anatomy education. Anat Rec B New Anat 281:6-8.
10. Jones DG. 1997. Anatomy departments and anatomy education: Reflections and myths. Clin Anat 10:34-40.
11. Marks SC 2000. The role of three-dimensional information in health care and medical education: The implications for anatomy and dissection. Clin Anat 13:448-452.
12. Marton F, Saljo R. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning: 1-Outcome and process. Brit J Education Psychol 46:4-11.
13. Mattick K, Dennis I, Bligh J. 2004. Approaches to learning and studying in medical students: Validation of a revised inventory and its relation to student characteristics and performance. Med Educ 38:535-543.
14. McGarvey MA, Farrell T, Conroy RM, Kandiah S, Monkhouse WS. 2001. Dissection: A positive experience. Clin Anat 14:227-230.
15. McKeown PP, Heylings DJ, Stevenson M, McKelvey KJ, Nixon JR, McCluskey DR. 2003. The impact of curricular change on medical students' knowledge of anatomy. Med Educ 37:954-961.
16. Miller R. 2000. Approaches to learning spatial relationships in gross anatomy: Perspective from wider principles of learning. Clin Anat 13:439-443.
17. Moss K. 2001. Learner retention of anatomical information presented in a digital two-dimensional format versus a digital three-dimensional format. J Biocommun 28:4-10.
18. Newble DI, Entwistle NJ. 1986. Learning styles and approaches: Implications for medical education. Med Educ 20:162-175.
19. Nnodim JO, Ohanaka EC, Osuji CU. 1996. A follow-up comparative study of two modes of learning human anatomy: By dissection and from prosections. Clin Anat 9:258-262.
20. O'Carroll RE, Whiten S, Jackson D, Sinclair DW. 2002. Assessing the emotional impact of cadaver dissection on medical students. Med Educ 36:550-554.
21. Pawlina W, Lachman N. 2004. Dissection in learning and teaching gross anatomy: Rebuttal to McLachlan. Anat Rec B New Anat 281:9-11.
22. Prince KJ, Scherpbier AJ, van Mameren H, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP. 2005. Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy? Med Educ 39:326-332.
23. Ramsden P. 2003. Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd Ed. London: Falmer Press.
24. Rochford K. 1985. Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Med Educ 19:13-26.
25. Skidmore JR. 1995. The case for prosection: Comment on R.L.M Newell's paper. Clin Anat 8:128-130.
26. Topp KS. 2004. Prosection vs. dissection, the debate continues: Rebuttal to Granger. Anat Rec B New Anat 281:12-14.
27. Tschernig T, Schlaud M, Pabst R. 2000. Emotional reactions of medical students to dissecting human bodies: A conceptual approach and its evaluation. Anat Rec 261:11-13.
28. Utting M, Willan P. 1995. What future for dissection in courses of human topographical anatomy in universities in the UK? Clin Anat 8:414-417.
29. Yeager VL. 1996. Learning gross anatomy: Dissection and prosection. Clin Anat 9:57-59.