Objective and subjective assessment of reciprocal peer teaching in medical gross anatomy laboratory

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 143-149

  Bentley, Brian S ^a   Hill, Robert V ^a  

^a NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Gross anatomy; Laboratory instruction; Medical education; Reciprocal peer teaching; Student opinions

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CADAVER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CURRICULUM; DISSECTION; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MEDICAL STUDENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECIPROCAL PEER TEACHING; TEACHING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN RELATION; LABORATORY; PEER GROUP; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD;

ANATOMY; CADAVER; COMPREHENSION; CURRICULUM; DISSECTION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; LABORATORIES; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; PEER GROUP; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRES; STUDENTS, MEDICAL;

EID: 70350519863     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.96     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Ajao MS, Abdullahi S, Jimoh SA, Olawepo A, Olayaki LA. 2008. The causes of shortage of cadavers in medical schools across Nigeria. Trop J Health Sci 15:1-4.
2. Allen AR, Boraks N. 1978. Peer tutoring: Putting it to the test. Read Teach 32:274-278.
3. AAMC. 2008. American Association of Medical Colleges. Medical schools increase enrollment to meet physician demand. Largest entering class in history includes notable gains by Latinos. Washington, DC. URL: www.aamc.org/ newsroom/pressrel/2008/081021.htm [accessed April 16, 2009].
4. Bay BH, Ling EA. 2007. Teaching of anatomy in the new millennium. Singapore Med J 48:182-183.
5. Baruch Y. 1999. Response rate in academic studies - A comparative analysis. Hum Relat 52:421-438.
6. Cottam WW. 1999. Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors. Clin Anat 12:55-56.
7. Dixon D. 2004. Relation between variables of preadmission, medical school performance, and COMLEX-USA levels 1 and 2 performance. J Am Osteopath Assoc 104:332-336. (Pubitemid 39100935)
8. Granger NA. 2004. Dissection laboratory is vital to medical gross anatomy education. Anat Rec 281B:6-8.
9. Granger NA, Calleson D. 2007. The impact of alternating dissection on student performance in a medical anatomy course: Are dissection videos an effective substitute for actual dissection? Clin Anat 20:315-321.
10. Hampton T. 2008. US medical school enrollment rising, but residency programs too limited. JAMA 299:2846.
11. Human K. 2008. Cadaver shortage hits medical schools. The Denver Post 29 April 2008, Denver CO. URL: www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci-9090020 [accessed April 16, 2009].
12. Korf H-W, Wicht H, Snipes RL, Timmermans J-P, Paulsen F, Rune G, Baumgart- Vogt E. 2008. The dissection course - Necessary and indispensable for teaching anatomy to medical students. Ann Anat 190:16-22.
13. Kramer B, Pather N, Ihunwo AO. 2008. Anatomy: Spotlight on Africa. Anat Sci Educ 1:111-118.
14. Krosnick JA. 1999. Survey research. Annu Rev Psychol 50:537-567.
15. 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. (Pubitemid 40593852)
16. McLachlan JC. 2004. New path for teaching anatomy: Living anatomy and medical imaging vs. dissection. Anat Rec 281B:4-5.
17. McCuskey RS, Carmichael SW, Kirch DG. 2005. The importance of anatomy in health professions education and the shortage of qualified educators. Acad Med 80:349-351.
18. Memon IK. 2009. Anatomy education faces challenges in Pakistan. Anat Sci Educ 2:193-194.
19. Nnodim JO. 1997. A controlled trial of peer-teaching in practical gross anatomy. Clin Anat 10:112-117.
20. Norman GR, Streiner DL. 2000. Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials. 2nd Ed. Ontario, Canada: BC Decker Inc. 324 p.
21. Pawlina W, Lachman N. 2004. Dissection in learning and teaching gross anatomy: Rebuttal to McLachlan. Anat Rec 281B:9-11. (Pubitemid 39579165)
22. Peterson CA, Tucker RP. 2005. Medical gross anatomy as a predictor of performance on the USMLE Step 1. Anat Rec 283B:5-8.
23. Ritter J. 1997. Facing a cadaver shortage, medical schools seek donors. Chicago Sun-Times 29 November 1997. Chicago, IL. URL: http://www.highbeam. com/doc/1P2-4417619.html [accessed April 16, 2009].
24. Rizzolo LJ, Stewart WB. 2006. Should we continue teaching anatomy by dissection when. . .? Anat Rec 289B:215-218.
25. Ross LM, Burkel WE, Mitchell JA. 1996. Michigan medical schools face cadaver shortage. Mich Med 95:22-23.
26. Santana S. 2003. Wanted: More anatomy instructors-institutions explore ways to cope with shortages. AAMC Rep 13:6-7.
27. Schultz M. 2008. Will a medical school boom ease the doctor shortage? The Detroit News 14 November 2008. Detroit, MI. URL: www.detnews.com/apps/ pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081114/SCHOOLS/811140398&imw=Y [accessed 16 April 2009].
28. Tank PW. 2005. Grant's Dissector, 13th Ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. 219 p.
29. Topp KS. 2004. Prosection vs. dissection, the debate continues: Rebuttal to Granger. Anat Rec 281B:12-14.
30. Weisberg HF, Krosnick JA, Bowen BD. 1996. An introduction to survey research, polling, and data analysis. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 393 p.
31. Williams A, Miskowicz-Retz KC. 2009. Evolution of colleges of osteopathic medicine: A discussion of the COCA's "substantive change" policies. J Am Osteopath Assoc 109:128-134.
32. Youdas JW, Krause DA, Hellyer NJ, Hollman JH, Rindflesch AB. 2007. Perceived usefulness of reciprocal peer teaching among doctor of physical therapy students in the gross anatomy laboratory. J Phys Ther Educ 21:30-38.
33. Youdas JW, Hoffarth BL, Kohlwey SR, Kramer CM, Petro JL. 2008. Peer teaching among physical therapy students during human gross anatomy: Perceptions of peer teachers and students. Anat Sci Educ 1:199-206.
34. Zoomerang. 2009. Online Surveys by Zoomerang. MarketTools Inc. San Francisco, CA. URL: http://www.zoomerang.com/ [accessed 16 April 2009].