Comparison of a gross anatomy laboratory to online anatomy software for teaching anatomy

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 52-59

  Mathiowetz, Virgil ^a   Yu, Chih Huang ^a   Quake Rapp, Cindee ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b Kosair Charities College of Health and Natural Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

Allied health education; Computer assisted learning; Graduate education; Gross anatomy education; Gross anatomy laboratory; Learning outcomes; Occupational therapy; Online anatomy learning; Prosection; Student perception; Student satisfaction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANATOMY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABORATORY; LEARNING; MALE; PROCEDURES; SOFTWARE; TEACHING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ANATOMY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; LEARNING; MALE; SOFTWARE; TEACHING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84954379183     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: 19359780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.1528     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Acland RD. 2013. Acland's Video Atlas of Human Anatomy. Woulters Kluwver Health/Lippincott, William & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD. URL: www.aclandanatomy.com [accessed 15 November 2014].
2. Agur AMR, Dalley AF. 2009. Grant's Atlas of Anatomy. 12th Ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 864 p.
3. Algina J, Oshima TC, Lin WY. 1994. Type I error rates for Welch's test and James's second-order test under nonnormality and inequality of variance when there are two groups. J Educ Behav Stat 19:275-291.
4. AnatomyTV. 2006. Interactive Anatomy; Video Tutorial Series. Primal Pictures Ltd., London, UK. URL: http://www.anatomy.tv/videotutorials.aspx [accessed 24 October 2014].
5. Aragon SR, Johnson SD, Shaik N. 2002. The influence of learning style preference on student success in online versus face-to-face environments. Am J Dist Educ 16:227-244.
6. Attardi SM, Rogers KA. 2015. Design and implementation of an online systemic human anatomy course with laboratory. Anat Sci Educ 8:53-62.
7. Beale EG, Tarwater PM, Lee VH. 2014. A retrospective look at replacing face-to-face embryology instruction with online lectures in a human anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 7:234-241.
8. Biasutto SN, Caussa LI, Criado del Rio LE. 2006. Teaching anatomy: Cadaver vs. computers. Ann Anat 188:187-190.
9. Bowman AW, Azzalini A. 1997. Applied Smoothing Techniques for Data Analysis: The Kernel Approach with S-Plus Illustrations. 1st Ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. 208 p.
10. Bowman AW, Azzalini A. 2014. Package 'sm': Smoothing methods for nonparametric regression and density estimation (version 2.2-5.4). The Comprehensive R Archive Network, Institute for Statistics and Mathematics of Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien. Wien, Austria. 74 p. URL: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sm/sm.pdf [accessed 20 November 2014].
11. Calafiore P, Damianov DS. 2011. The effect of time spent online on student achievement in online economics and finance courses. J Econ Educ 42:209-223.
12. Cochran A, Edelman LS, Morris SE, Saffle JR. 2008. Learner satisfaction with web-based learning as an adjunct to clinical experience in burn surgery. J Burn Care Res 29:222-226.
13. Codd AM, Choudhury B. 2011. Virtual reality anatomy: Is it comparable with traditional methods in the teaching of human forearm musculoskeletal anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 4:119-125.
14. Choudhury B, Gouldsborough I. 2012. The use of electronic media to develop transferable skills in science students studying anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 5:125-131.
15. Doyle NW, Jacobs K. 2013. Accommodating student learning styles and preferences in an online occupational therapy course. Work 44:247-253.
16. Durham JA, Brettell S, Summerside C, McHanwell S. 2009. Evaluation of a virtual anatomy course for clinical undergraduates. Eur J Dent Educ 13:100-109.
17. Eom SB, Wen HJ, Ashill N. 2006. The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decis Sci J Innovat Educ 4:215-235.
18. Gabard DL, Lowe DL, Chang JW. 2012. Current and future instructional methods and influencing factors in anatomy instruction in physical therapy and medical schools in the US. J Allied Health 41:53-62.
19. st century: Directions and the strategies. Open Med Educ J 3:5-10.
20. Granger NA. 2004. Dissection laboratory is vital to medical gross anatomy education. Anat Rec 281B:6-8.
21. Green RA, Hughes DL. 2013. Student outcomes associated with use of asynchronous online discussion forums in gross anatomy teaching. Anat Sci Educ 6:101-106.
22. Greene DP, Roberts SL. 2005. Kinesiology: Movement in the Context of Activity. 2nd Ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby. 230 p.
23. Hildebrandt S. 2010. Lessons to be learned from the history of anatomical teaching in the United States: The example of the University of Michigan. Anat Sci Educ 3:202-212.
24. Hopkins R, Regehr G, Wilson TD. 2011. Exploring the changing learning environment of the gross anatomy lab. Acad Med 86:883-888.
25. Johnson IP, Palmer E, Burton J, Brockhouse M. 2013. Online learning resources in anatomy: What do students think? Clin Anat 26:556-563.
26. Keselman HJ, Othman AR, Wilcox RR, Fradette K. 2004. The new and improved two-sample t test. Psychol Sci 15:47-51.
27. Korkofingas C, Macri J. 2013. Does time spent online have an influence on student performance? Evidence for a large business studies class. J Univ Teach Learn Pract 10:2.
28. Hale LS, Mirakian EA, Day DB. 2009. Online vs. classroom instruction: Student satisfaction and learning outcomes in an undergraduate allied health pharmacology course. J Allied Health 38:e36-e42.
29. Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. 2006. First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Adv Physiol Educ 30:13-16.
30. McKeough DM, Bagatell N. 2009. Attitudes of health care students about computer-aided neuroanatomy instruction. J Allied Health 38:189-195.
31. McLauchlan 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. O'Byrne PJ, Patry A, Carnegie JA. 2008. The development of interactive online learning tools for the study of anatomy. Med Teach 30:e260-e271.
34. Paecher M, Maier B, Macher D. 2010. Students' expectations of and experiences in E-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Comput Educ 54:222-229.
35. Pereira JA, Pleguezuelos E, Merí A, Molina-Ros A, Molina-Tomás MC, Masdeu C. 2007. Effectiveness of using blended learning strategies for teaching and learning human anatomy. Med Educ 41:189-195.
36. Rehman FU, Khan SN, Yunas SM. 2012. Students, perception of computer assisted teaching and learning of anatomy-in a scenario where cadavers are lacking. Biomed Res 23:215-218.
37. Romero M, Barberà E. 2011. Quality of learners' time and learning performance beyond quantitative time-on-task. Int Rev Res Open Dist Learn 12:125-137.
38. Saltarelli AJ, Roseth CJ, Saltarelli WA. 2014. Human cadavers vs. multimedia simulation: A study of student learning in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 7:331-339.
39. Sieg KW, Adams SP. 2009. Illustrated Essentials of Musculoskeletal Anatomy. 5th Ed. Gainesville, FL: Megabooks Inc. 182 p.
40. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. 2010. The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 3:83-93.
41. Thomas KJ, Denham B, Dinolfo JD. 2011. Perceptions among occupational and physical therapy students of a nontraditional methodology for teaching gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 4:71-77.
42. Welch BL. 1947. The generalization of 'Student's' problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 34:28-35.
43. Wright SJ. 2012. Student perceptions of an upper-level, undergraduate human anatomy laboratory course without cadavers. Anat Sci Educ 5:146-157.