Premium
Educational Outcomes of Implementing Prosections as Educational Tools in the Medical Gross Anatomy Laboratory
Author(s) -
Williams Sutton Ross,
Thompson Kenneth,
Sinning Allan
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.lb17
Subject(s) - gross anatomy , cohort , dissection (medical) , medical education , modality (human–computer interaction) , medicine , psychology , surgery , anatomy , pathology , computer science , artificial intelligence
This research study aimed to identify the educational outcomes associated with the decision to utilize prosections (pre‐dissected specimens) rather than active dissection as the primary educational modality through which first year medical students were exposed to anatomical structures in a medical gross anatomy laboratory course. Participants in this study included 580 first year medical students enrolled in the medical gross anatomy course at The University of Mississippi Medical Center from 2013–2016. The educational outcome of interest was student performance on laboratory practical examination questions. Student performance on these questions was compared between and within groups based upon the educational modality through which they were exposed to the structure being assessed. As such, students were assigned into one of the following three cohorts for each question analyzed: dissector, non‐dissector, or prosector. Statistical analysis indicates a small but statistically significant difference between how the dissector and non‐dissector cohorts performed on all practical examination questions analyzed. The dissector cohort (M=82.8%) performed 1.5% (95% C.I‐ 1.1% to 2.1%) better on questions than the non‐dissector cohort (M=81.3%) X 2 (1, N= 85,300) = 36.11, p<0.001. Analysis also indicates that for both the hand and foot regions, those cohorts that were exposed to these regions through participation in the dissection process performed significantly worse on practical exam questions pertaining to these regions than those cohorts who were exposed to the hand and foot through interaction with prosected specimens. The average score on practical questions pertaining to the foot was 19.3% (95% C.I‐ 15.2% to 23.5%) lower for the dissector cohort (M=68.6%) than for the prosector cohort (M=87.9%) X 2 (1, N= 2,010) = 105.28, p<0.001. The average score on practical questions pertaining to the hand was 8.3% (95% C.I‐5.1% to 11.6%) lower for the dissector cohort (M=71.4%) than for the prosector cohort (M=79.7%) X 2 (1, N= 2,730) = 25.70, p<0.001. These results demonstrate that there is not a significant advantage for those medical students who learn human anatomy through the dissection process rather than through interaction with pre‐dissected specimens. Results also demonstrate that there is a significant advantage to using prosections rather than student dissection as the primary educational modality for learning the anatomy of the hand and foot regions.