Abdullah Ortadeveci1, Merve Nur Ermez2, Semih Oz3, Hilmi Ozden2. 1. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey. abdullahortadeveci@gmail.com. 2. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey. 3. Health Services Vocational School, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Anatomy, one of the cornerstone branches of medical education, is one of the rare areas, where the traditional method remains the most efficient education method despite technological developments. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has made it impossible for the traditional method to continue and has enabled the integration of different distance learning methods into anatomy education. The aim of our study is to perform comparative evaluation of three education methods (traditional, asynchronous online, synchronous online) from the students' perspective. METHODS: In our study, a questionnaire form was sent to Eskişehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine students (n = 168) via Google forms. The students were asked to rank the anatomy education types from the most appropriate to the least appropriate in the proposals. The questionnaire consisted of multiple choice and open-ended questions in addition to 15 proposals questioning demographic information, student autonomy, efficiency, and preference. RESULTS: According to the results obtained, the students stated that the most efficient method (in terms of both theoretical "50%" and practical "55.4%") is the traditional method. In addition, when it comes to preference, students who preferred one of the distance online education types (asynchronous or synchronous) for theoretical anatomy constituted the majority (59.5%). The traditional method was rated as the least appropriate in terms of accessing course resources (42.3%). CONCLUSIONS: According to our study, while face-to-face education is still indispensable for the practical part of the ideal anatomy education, the theoretical part can be carried out remotely by strengthening it with some activities.
PURPOSE: Anatomy, one of the cornerstone branches of medical education, is one of the rare areas, where the traditional method remains the most efficient education method despite technological developments. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has made it impossible for the traditional method to continue and has enabled the integration of different distance learning methods into anatomy education. The aim of our study is to perform comparative evaluation of three education methods (traditional, asynchronous online, synchronous online) from the students' perspective. METHODS: In our study, a questionnaire form was sent to Eskişehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine students (n = 168) via Google forms. The students were asked to rank the anatomy education types from the most appropriate to the least appropriate in the proposals. The questionnaire consisted of multiple choice and open-ended questions in addition to 15 proposals questioning demographic information, student autonomy, efficiency, and preference. RESULTS: According to the results obtained, the students stated that the most efficient method (in terms of both theoretical "50%" and practical "55.4%") is the traditional method. In addition, when it comes to preference, students who preferred one of the distance online education types (asynchronous or synchronous) for theoretical anatomy constituted the majority (59.5%). The traditional method was rated as the least appropriate in terms of accessing course resources (42.3%). CONCLUSIONS: According to our study, while face-to-face education is still indispensable for the practical part of the ideal anatomy education, the theoretical part can be carried out remotely by strengthening it with some activities.
Authors: Julia Holzer; Selma Korlat; Christian Haider; Martin Mayerhofer; Elisabeth Pelikan; Barbara Schober; Christiane Spiel; Toumazis Toumazi; Katariina Salmela-Aro; Udo Käser; Anja Schultze-Krumbholz; Sebastian Wachs; Mukul Dabas; Suman Verma; Dean Iliev; Daniela Andonovska-Trajkovska; Piotr Plichta; Jacek Pyżalski; Natalia Walter; Justyna Michałek-Kwiecień; Aleksandra Lewandowska-Walter; Michelle F Wright; Marko Lüftenegger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Cecilia Brassett; Thomas Cosker; D Ceri Davies; Peter Dockery; Thomas H Gillingwater; T Clive Lee; Stefan Milz; Simon H Parson; Fabio Quondamatteo; Tracey Wilkinson Journal: J Anat Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 2.610