A comparison of the effectiveness of dissection and prosection on short-term anatomic knowledge retention in a reciprocal peer-teaching program.

Few discussions regarding instructional methods incite as much passion as the debate over dissection versus prosection. Despite numerous analyses, few studies have isolated the impact of dissection versus prosection from the numerous variables that are involved in anatomy education. This study used a retrospective design to assess the effect of peer teaching with dissection or prosection on anatomical knowledge retention of the peer teachers. Exam scores were analyzed from three cohorts of students (N = 184) who were enrolled in a Musculoskeletal System course in an allopathic medical school between academic years 2014-2017. Students in the first 2 yr learned anatomy of an assigned region through traditional dissection, whereas students in the third year learned anatomy of the same regions on prosected specimens. The effect of these instructional methods on anatomical knowledge retention was measured by student performance on a teaching-readiness quiz, written exam, and practical examination. One advantage of this study is the stability of variables between cohorts. Student groups peer taught the same objectives; course sequencing and content remained consistent between years; students spent the same amount of time learning their material, regardless of learning modality (dissection or prosection); and students were tested in the same manner. Comparisons of student performance data suggest that anatomy knowledge was equivalent, regardless of the instructional method (dissection or prosected cadavers) but is strongly associated with prior anatomy experience. Findings from this study support previous studies that conclude that there are no disparities in the effectiveness of learning anatomy via dissection or prosection.