Literature DB >> 33452299

Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities.

Aristeidis Zibis1, Vasileios Mitrousias2, Sokratis Varitimidis3, Vasileios Raoulis4, Apostolos Fyllos4, Dimitrios Arvanitis4.   

Abstract

Anatomy teaching has traditionally been based on dissection. However, alternative teaching modalities constantly emerge, the use of which along with a decrease in teaching hours has brought the anatomy knowledge of students and young doctors into question. In this way, the goal of the present study is to a. compare the efficacy of the most common teaching modalities and b. investigate students' perceptions on each modality. In total, 313 medical students were taught gross anatomy of the upper limb, using four different learning modalities: dissection (n = 80), prosections (n = 77), plastic models (n = 84) and 3D anatomy software (n = 72). Students' knowledge was examined by 100 multiple-choice and tag questions followed by an evaluation questionnaire. Regarding performance, the dissection and the 3D group outperformed the prosection and the plastic models group in total and multiple-choice questions. The performance of the 3D group in tag questions was also statistically significantly higher compared to the other three groups. In the evaluation questionnaire, dissection outperformed the rest three modalities in questions assessing students' satisfaction, but also fear or stress before the laboratory. Moreover, dissection and 3D software were considered more useful when preparing for clinical activities. In conclusion, dissection remains first in students' preferences and achieves higher knowledge acquisition. Contemporary, 3D anatomy software are considered equally important when preparing for clinical activities and mainly favor spatial knowledge acquisition. Prosections could be a valuable alternative when dissection is unavailable due to limited time or shortage of cadavers. Plastic models are less effective in knowledge acquisition but could be valuable when preparing for cadaveric laboratories. In conclusion, the targeted use of each learning modality is essential for a modern medical curriculum.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33452299      PMCID: PMC7810993          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80860-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  49 in total

1.  Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States.

Authors:  Richard L Drake; D J Lowrie; Chantal M Prewitt
Journal:  Anat Rec       Date:  2002-04-15

2.  Understanding the current anatomical competence landscape: Comparing perceptions of program directors, residents, and fourth-year medical students.

Authors:  Erin P Fillmore; James J Brokaw; Komal Kochhar; Peter M Nalin
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 5.958

3.  Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change.

Authors:  K M Patel; B J Moxham
Journal:  Clin Anat       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.414

4.  Survey of clinicians' attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students.

Authors:  S W Waterston; I J Stewart
Journal:  Clin Anat       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.414

5.  Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow.

Authors:  Richard L Drake; Jennifer M McBride; Nirusha Lachman; Wojciech Pawlina
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2009 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.958

6.  An analysis of the educational value of low-fidelity anatomy models as external representations.

Authors:  Lap Ki Chan; Maurice M W Cheng
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2011-07-08       Impact factor: 5.958

7.  The Blooming Anatomy Tool (BAT): A discipline-specific rubric for utilizing Bloom's taxonomy in the design and evaluation of assessments in the anatomical sciences.

Authors:  Andrew R Thompson; Valerie D O'Loughlin
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 5.958

8.  A meta-analysis of anatomy laboratory pedagogies.

Authors:  Adam B Wilson; Corinne H Miller; Barbie A Klein; Melissa A Taylor; Michael Goodwin; Eve K Boyle; Kirsten Brown; Chantal Hoppe; Michelle Lazarus
Journal:  Clin Anat       Date:  2017-07-06       Impact factor: 2.414

9.  Virtual reality anatomy: is it comparable with traditional methods in the teaching of human forearm musculoskeletal anatomy?

Authors:  Anthony M Codd; Bipasha Choudhury
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2011-04-07       Impact factor: 5.958

10.  Evaluation of the willingness for cadaveric donation in Greece: a population-based study.

Authors:  Heidi Halou; Athanasios Chalkias; Dimitra Mystrioti; Nicoletta Iacovidou; Panagiotis V S Vasileiou; Theodoros Xanthos
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 5.958

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Musculoskeletal Educational Resources for the Aspiring Orthopaedic Surgeon.

Authors:  Harsh Wadhwa; Noelle L Van Rysselberghe; Sean T Campbell; Julius A Bishop
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2022-03-25

2.  No cuts, no buts: Satisfaction of first-year medical students with a hybrid prosection-based model for learning gross anatomy during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Alissa F Schurr; Brandon J Burg; Edwin Dickinson; Michael C Granatosky
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 6.652

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.