Due to the Covid‐19 pandemic, the education system worldwide faced sudden and unforeseen challenges. Many academic institutions closed their doors, forcing both educators and students to transition to Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) for the remainder of the semester. This transition eliminated hands‐on experiences, increased workload, and altered curricula. However, these aspects, as well as students' perceptions, study habits, and performance in response to ERT remain poorly documented. This contribution describes changes in the curriculum of an undergraduate cadaver‐based laboratory, and explores students' performance, self‐perceived learning, and overall satisfaction during this educational crisis. Online content delivery for this course included both asynchronous instruction and synchronous discussion sessions. While formative assessments remained the same, online spotter examinations included short answer, multiple choice, multiple answer, ordering, and true and false questions. Despite examination grades improving 20% during ERT, students reported lower levels of learning, confidence, and engagement with the course materials when compared to the face‐to‐face portion of the class. The most prevalent challenges identified by students were those related to the loss of access to cadaver‐based learning, including difficulty identifying and visualizing structures in three dimensions, and the loss of context and sensorial cues. Flexibility in taking examinations and learning the material at their own pace were recognized as positive outcomes of the ERT transition. While the resulting student perceptions and performances are unsurprising, they offer insight into the challenges of fostering a productive learning environment in a future threatened by epidemic outbreak and economic uncertainty.

No abstract

Cadaveric prosections are effective learning tools in anatomy education. They range from a fully dissected, sometimes plastinated, complete cadaver (in situ prosections), to a single, carefully dissected structure detached from a cadaver (ex situ prosections). While most research has focused on the advantages and disadvantages of dissection versus prosection, limited information is available on the instructional efficacy of different prosection types. This contribution explored potential differences between in situ and ex situ prosections regarding the ability of undergraduate students to identify anatomical structures. To determine if students were able to recognize the same anatomical structure on both in situ and ex situ prosections, or on either one individually, six structures were tagged on both prosection types as part of three course summative examinations. The majority of students (61%-68%) fell into one of the two categories: those that recognized or failed to recognize the same structure on both in situ and ex situ prosections. The percentage of students who recognized a selected structure on only one type of prosection was small (1.6%-31.6%), but skewed in favor of ex situ prosections (P ≤ 0.01). These results suggest that overall students' identification ability was due to knowledge differences, not the spatial or contextual challenges posed by each type of prosection. They also suggest that the relative difficulty of either prosection type depends on the nature of the anatomical structure. Thus, one type of prosection might be more appropriate for teaching some structures, and therefore the use of both types is recommended. Anat Sci Educ 14: 808-815.

No abstract

No abstract