The use of specially designed tasks to enhance student interest in the cadaver dissection laboratory

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 76-82

  Kang, Seok Hoon ^a   Shin, Jwa Seop ^a   Hwang, Young Il ^a  

^a Seoul National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Anatomy curriculum; Cadaver dissection; Collaborative learning; Encouraging discussions; Gross anatomy education; Gross anatomy laboratory; Korean medical education; Team based task

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CADAVER; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; COOPERATION; DISSECTION; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MEDICAL STUDENT; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOUTH KOREA;

ANATOMY; ATTITUDE; CADAVER; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DISSECTION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; SCHOOLS, MEDICAL; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84857787985     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: 19359780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.1251     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Arráez-Aybar LA, Castaño-Collado G, Casado-Morales MI. 2008. Dissection as a modulator of emotional attitudes and reactions of future health professionals. Med Educ 42: 563-571.
2. Azer SA, Eizenberg N. 2007. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat 29: 173-180.
3. Aziz MA, McKenzie JC, Wilson JS, Cowie RJ, Ayeni SA, Dunn BK. 2002. The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. Anat Rec 269: 20-32.
4. Bergman EM, Prince KJ, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. 2008. How much anatomy is enough? Anat Sci Educ 1: 184-188.
5. Bowe CM, Voss J, Thomas Aretz H. 2009. Case method teaching: An effective approach to integrate the basic and clinical sciences in the preclinical medical curriculum. Med Teach 31: 834-841.
6. Bulstrode C, Gallagher FA, Pilling EL, Furniss D, Proctor RD. 2003. A randomised controlled trial comparing two methods of teaching medical students trauma and orthopaedics: Traditional lectures versus the 'donut round'. Surgeon 1: 76-80.
7. Burns ER. 2010. "Anatomizing" reversed: Use of examination questions that foster use of higher order learning skills by students. Anat Sci Educ 3: 330-334.
8. Cahill KC, Ettarh RR. 2009. Attitudes to anatomy dissection in an Irish medical school. Clin Anat 22: 386-391.
9. Cake MA. 2006. Deep dissection: Motivating students beyond rote learning in veterinary anatomy. J Vet Med Educ 33: 266-271.
10. Calvert MJ, Ross NM, Freemantle N, Xu Y, Zvauya R, Parle JV. 2009. Examination performance of graduate entry medical students compared with mainstream students. J R Soc Med 102: 425-430.
11. Costa ML, van Rensburg L, Rushton N. 2007. Does teaching style matter? A randomised trial of group discussion versus lectures in orthopaedic undergraduate teaching. Med Educ 41: 214-217.
12. Dinsmore CE, Daugherty S, Zeitz HJ. 2001. Student responses to the gross anatomy laboratory in a medical curriculum. Clin Anat 14: 231-236.
13. Drake RL. 2007. A unique, innovative, and clinically oriented approach to anatomy education. Acad Med 82: 475-478.
14. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. 2009. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: The winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ 2: 253-259.
15. Elizondo-Omaña RE, Morales-Gómez JA, Morquecho-Espinoza O, Hinojosa-Amaya JM, Villarreal-Silva EE, García-Rodríguez Mde L, Guzmán-López S. 2010. Teaching skills to promote clinical reasoning in early basic science courses. Anat Sci Educ 3: 267-271.
16. Fischer RL, Jacobs SL, Herbert WN. 2004. Small-group discussion versus lecture format for third-year students in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 104: 349-353.
17. Fleiszer D, Fleiszer T, Russel R. 1997. Doughnut rounds: A self-directed learning approach to teaching critical care in surgery. Med Teach 19: 190-193.
18. Gartner LP. 2003. Anatomical sciences in the allopathic medical school curriculum in the United States between 1967-2001. Clin Anat 16: 434-439.
19. Granger NA. 2004. Dissection laboratory is vital to medical gross anatomy education. Anat Rec 281B: 6-8.
20. Harasym PH, Tsai TC, Hemmati P. 2008. Current trends in developing medical students' critical thinking abilities. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 24: 341-355.
21. Heylings DJ. 2002. Anatomy 1999-2000: The curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Educ 36: 702-710.
22. Hwang YI. 2009. Analysis of anatomy education in Korean medical schools. In: Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of Korean Association of Anatomists, Daegu, Republic of Korea 2009 October 22-23. p 53. Korean Association of Anatomists, Seoul, Korea.
23. Leboulanger N. 2011. First cadaver dissection: Stress, preparation, and emotional experience. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 128: 175-183.
24. Lee WB, Baik SH. 1990. Analysis of anatomy curricula of twenty-nine medical colleges in Korea. Korean J Med Educ 2: 42-50.
25. Lempp HK. 2005. Perceptions of dissection by students in one medical school: Beyond learning about anatomy. A qualitative study. Med Educ 39: 318-325.
26. Macchi V, Porzionato A, Stecco C, Tiengo C, Parenti A, Cestrone A, De Caro R. 2011. Body parts removed during surgery: A useful training source. Anat Sci Educ 4: 151-156.
27. Mann KV. 2008. Reflection: Understanding its influence on practice. Med Educ 42: 449-451.
28. Manning G, Garrud P. 2009. Comparative attainment of 5-year undergraduate and 4-year graduate entry medical students moving into foundation training. BMC Med Educ 9: 76.
29. Mc Garvey MA, Farrell T, Conroy RM, Kandiah S, Monkhouse WS. 2001. Dissection: a positive experience. Clin Anat 14: 227-230.
30. McLachlan JC, Patten D. 2006. Anatomy teaching: Ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ 40: 243-253.
31. McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. 2004. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ 38: 418-424.
32. Miller SA, Perrotti W, Silverthorn DU, Dalley AF, Rarey KE. 2002. From college to clinic: Reasoning over memorization is key for understanding anatomy. Anat Rec 269: 69-80.
33. Miserandino M. 1996. Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. J Educ Psychol 88: 203-214.
34. Mittlefehldt S, Grotzer T. 2003. Using metacognition to facilitate the transfer of causal models in learning density and pressure. In: Proceedings of the 2003 National Association of Research in Science Teaching (2003 NARST) Annual International Conference; Philadelphia, PA, 2003 March 23-26. p 1-29. National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Reston, VA.
35. Nieder GL, Parmelee DX, Stolfi A, Hudes PD. 2005. Team-based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat 18: 56-63.
36. Norman GR, Schmidt HG. 1992. The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Acad Med 67: 557-565.
37. 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.
38. Park JT, Jang Y, Park MS, Pae C, Park J, Hu KS, Park JS, Han SH, Koh KS, Kim HJ. 2011. The trend of body donation for education based on Korean social and religious culture. Anat Sci Educ 4: 33-38.
39. Pawlina W, Lachman N. 2004. Dissection in learning and teaching gross anatomy: Rebuttal to McLachlan. Anat Rec 281B: 9-11.
40. Plaisant O, Cabanis EA, Delmas V. 2004. Going back to dissection in a medical curriculum: The paradigm of Necker-Enfants Malades. Surg Radiol Anat 26: 504-511.
41. Prince KJ, van Mameren H, Hylkema N, Drukker J, Scherpbier AJ, van der Vleuten CP. 2003. Does problem-based learning lead to deficiencies in basic science knowledge? An empirical case on anatomy. Med Educ 37: 15-21.
42. Regehr G, Norman GR. 1996. Issues in cognitive psychology: Implications for professional education. Acad Med 71: 988-1001.
43. Richard P. 2007. Learning chemistry in a metacognitive environment. Asia Pac Educ Researcher 16: 165-183.
44. Rizzolo LJ, Rando WC, O'Brien MK, Haims AH, Abrahams JJ, Stewart WB. 2010. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 3: 109-120.
45. Rubinstein J, Dhoble A, Ferenchick G. 2009. Puzzle based teaching versus traditional instruction in electrocardiogram interpretation for medical students-A pilot study. BMC Med Educ 9: 4.
46. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. 2010. The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 3: 83-93.
47. Tärnvik A. 2007. Revival of the case method: A way to retain student-centred learning in a post-PBL era. Med Teach 29: e32-e36.
48. Topp KS. 2004. Prosection vs. dissection, the debate continues: Rebuttal to Granger. Anat Rec 281B: 12-14.
49. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Holland BK. 2008. Modified use of team-based learning for effective delivery of medical gross anatomy and embryology. Anat Sci Educ 1: 3-9.
50. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. 2011. Team-based learning in anatomy: An efficient, effective, and economical strategy. Anat Sci Educ 4: 333-339.
51. Wilkinson TJ, Wells JE, Bushnell JA. 2004. Are differences between graduates and undergraduates in a medical course due to age or prior degree? Med Educ 38: 1141-1146.
52. Wilson DR, Nava PB. 2010. Medical student responses to clinical procedure teaching in the anatomy lab. Clin Teach 7: 14-18.
53. Winkelmann A. 2007. Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: A review of the evidence. Med Educ 41: 15-22.
54. Winkelmann A, Hendrix S, Kiessling C. 2007. What do students actually do during a dissection course? First steps towards understanding a complex learning experience. Acad Med 82: 989-995.
55. Yiou R, Goodenough D. 2006. Applying problem-based learning to the teaching of anatomy: The example of Harvard Medical School. Surg Radiol Anat 28: 189-194.
56. Zumwalt AC, Lufler RS, Monteiro J, Shaffer K. 2010. Building the body: Active learning laboratories that emphasize practical aspects of anatomy and integration with radiology. Anat Sci Educ 3: 134-140.