Premium
Medical students using plastinated prosections as a sole learning tool perform equally well on identification exams as compared to those performing dissections over the same regions
Author(s) -
Hoffmann Darren S,
May Nikolas,
Thomsen Timothy,
Holec Megan,
Andersen Kathleen H,
Pizzimenti Marc A
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.24.1_supplement.176.5
Subject(s) - dissection (medical) , likert scale , psychology , identification (biology) , medicine , anatomy , biology , developmental psychology , botany
We sought to determine if small plastinated specimens would be sufficient to replace traditional dissection/prosection methods. A small group of pre‐M1 students (n=26) participated in labs and learned from dissection (D), or plastinated prosections (PP) of body regions/organs. Students who learned the heart from PP performed slightly better on the final identification exam than those who dissected the heart (67.0±6.2 PP vs. 60.3±8.6 D). The exam consisted of tags on both PP and non‐plastinated (NP) hearts. The difference between the groups was due to higher scores from PP students on NP heart tags (70.0±7.2 PP vs. 54.8±8.3 NP). Both groups performed equally on PP heart tags. Other control regions where both groups used the same learning modality had identical scores between groups. To assess differences in learning from PP vs. NP prosections, groups studied the axilla from PP or NP prosections. Students using PP slightly outperformed those learning from traditional NP prosections (51.1±7.9 PP vs. 43.0±6.8 NP). Interestingly, when asked to rank usefulness of the modalities (1–5 Likert scale), students ranked PP significantly lower than D or NP (3.36±0.4 PP vs. 4.36±0.2 NP and 4.46±0.4 D, p<0.05). Reasons ranged from physical properties of the stiffer plastinates to changes in engagement level. These data support use of PP in the medical‐level anatomy curriculum, but student response data indicate limitations. Grant Funding Source : University of Iowa OCRME