Andreas Winkelmann1, Sven Hendrix, Claudia Kiessling. 1. Institute of Cell Biology and Neurobiology, Center for Anatomy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. andreas.winkelmann@charite.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: To obtain data about students' actual individual choices for certain activities in dissection courses and about possible factors that influence those choices. METHOD: During one winter semester that ended in 2004, the authors asked 371 students from three dissection courses within one medical school in Germany to complete questionnaires on the amount of time spent each course day on certain lab activities (hands-on dissection, prosection, reading, etc.). Additional questions inquired about students' motivation, attitude towards dissection, emotional or ethical concerns, course evaluation, and personality traits. RESULTS: A total of 309 students (83%) responded. On average, students spent about 33% of their course time with active dissection, 27% studying prosected material, and 31% with cadaver-unrelated activities. There were statistically significant differences among all of the three courses. Individual variability in dissection activity was very high: time devoted to active dissection ranged from 0% to 82% of daily course time. In a multiple linear regression model, the personal factors measured (e.g., attitude towards dissection) accounted for 9% of the total variance of time devoted to active dissection. CONCLUSIONS: A dissection course is not a uniform learning experience--a fact that should be borne in mind in general discussions about dissection and in the planning of dissection courses. Students within the same course seek divergent learning experiences. More still needs to be learned about the motivation for their individual choices. The data from the present study constitute a baseline for future research into anatomical dissection as a teaching method.
PURPOSE: To obtain data about students' actual individual choices for certain activities in dissection courses and about possible factors that influence those choices. METHOD: During one winter semester that ended in 2004, the authors asked 371 students from three dissection courses within one medical school in Germany to complete questionnaires on the amount of time spent each course day on certain lab activities (hands-on dissection, prosection, reading, etc.). Additional questions inquired about students' motivation, attitude towards dissection, emotional or ethical concerns, course evaluation, and personality traits. RESULTS: A total of 309 students (83%) responded. On average, students spent about 33% of their course time with active dissection, 27% studying prosected material, and 31% with cadaver-unrelated activities. There were statistically significant differences among all of the three courses. Individual variability in dissection activity was very high: time devoted to active dissection ranged from 0% to 82% of daily course time. In a multiple linear regression model, the personal factors measured (e.g., attitude towards dissection) accounted for 9% of the total variance of time devoted to active dissection. CONCLUSIONS: A dissection course is not a uniform learning experience--a fact that should be borne in mind in general discussions about dissection and in the planning of dissection courses. Students within the same course seek divergent learning experiences. More still needs to be learned about the motivation for their individual choices. The data from the present study constitute a baseline for future research into anatomical dissection as a teaching method.