Premium
Dissection Opportunity Affects Student Performance on Gross Anatomy Practical and Lecture Examination Questions
Author(s) -
Marshall Aaron,
Thompson Andrew R.
Publication year - 2017
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.31.1_supplement.733.7
Subject(s) - gross anatomy , medical education , curriculum , aptitude , medical school , dissection (medical) , psychology , medicine , mathematics education , radiology , anatomy , pedagogy , developmental psychology
The University of Cincinnati College of Medicine offers a Special Master's Program (SMP) designed to strengthen the academic credentials of students preparing to apply to U.S. medical schools. In this program, approximately 32 students each year participate in a select portion of the first year medical school curriculum with the M1 medical students. The intention is to provide an identical educational experience for both groups; however, logistical challenges have resulted in small curricular differences. One notable example is that SMP students study gross anatomy by viewing dissections that the medical students have already completed. Because SMP and medical students take identical examinations, there is an opportunity to evaluate the potential affect this difference had on examination performance. To investigate this, two years of practical and lecture‐based written examination data were considered. Anatomy lecture examination questions were classified into the following categories: information covered only in lecture (not part of any dissection), information covered only in the laboratory, and information presented in both contexts. Aptitude was controlled by comparing medical and SMP students' examination scores using Analysis of Covariance with MCAT scores entered as a covariate. This was possible because MCAT scores are required for both the SMP and medical program. Results showed that medical students scored significantly higher on gross anatomy practical examinations (F(1, 402)= 36.9, P<0.01). This trend continued on anatomy lecture examination questions, where medical students performed significantly better on questions derived from information covered only in the laboratory (F(1, 402)= 51.9, P<0.01). However, performance between SMP and medical students was not significantly different among questions derived from information presented only in lecture (P=0.94) or in lecture and laboratory (P=0.14). While other potential factors are discussed, these results suggest that the dissection experience is important not only for learning cadaveric material, but also for understanding anatomical relationships tested conceptually during lecture‐based written examinations.