Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change

Abstract

Throughout the world, recent developments in medical curricula have led to marked changes in the teaching of gross anatomy. This change has involved decreasing curricular student contact time and the use of new methods for anatomical teaching. Some "modern" anatomists have welcomed the arrival of these novel methods while other, more "traditional," anatomists have fought to maintain the use of cadaveric dissection. Consequently, controversy over teaching methods has developed to the point that "modernist" and "traditionalist" views within the community of professional anatomists seem to have diverged such that the importance of gross anatomy in the medical curriculum is disputed and that cadaveric dissection by students is no longer the preferred method of teaching. This study tests this hypothesis using Thurstone and Chave attitude analyses to assess attitudes to educational change and the importance of anatomy in medicine and a matrix questionnaire that required professional anatomists to relate course aims to different teaching methods. In total, 112 completed questionnaires were received from anatomists who are employed at higher education institutions that use various teaching methods and who span the academic hierarchy. The results suggest that over 90% of anatomists favor educational change and approximately 98% of professional anatomists believe that gross anatomy has an important role to play in clinical medicine. A clear majority of the anatomists (69%) favored the use of human cadaveric dissection over other teaching methods (this method seeming to achieve a range of different course aims/objectives) (P < 0.001; Kruskal-Wallis). Using Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests, the order-of-preference for teaching methods was found to be as follows: 1. Practical lessons using cadaveric dissection by students. 2. Practical lessons using prosection. 3. Tuition based upon living and radiological anatomy. 4. Electronic tuition using computer aided learning (CAL). 5. Didactic teaching alone (e.g. lectures/class room-based tuition). 6. Use of models. The preference for the use of human cadaveric dissection was evident in all groups of anatomists, whether "traditionalist" or "modernist" (P = 0.002, Chi-squared). These findings are therefore not consistent with our initial hypothesis.

A Five-Year Review of Enhanced Learning through Integration: Anatomy and Clinical Practice

“…Efforts to improve the curriculum in anatomy have included enhancing didactic teaching, computer-aided learning, use of models, inclusion of living anatomy and radiological anatomy, cadaver dissection by students, and practical lessons with prosected cadaver specimens (Patel & Moxham, 2006). Literature review shows that many programs have described integration strategies and multiple factors contribute to successful learning, so identifying how and which interventions are successful can be challenging (Kulasegaram et al, 2013).…”

Teaching Anatomy: need or taste?

“…However, anatomists are confronted with challenges like presenting the materials in restricted time with limited references [5]. Learning anatomy is based on a high imagination power and a strong memory since it provides a massive amount of information [6]. Low motivation of students, which is caused by their inability to memorize the material leads to their inability to put into practice the learned subjects [7].…”

“…Anatomists sometimes are criticized for their detailed teaching and it is said that these details can sometimes prevent the students to learn better. It is declared that for better memorizing and longevity of learning it is inevitable to provide a background [6]. Given the different methods of teaching anatomy at different universities throughout the world [11,12,13,14] there is no consensus between teaching methods [15].…”

Impact of the use of cadaver on student’s ability to pass anatomy examination

“…Many views have been expressed against this current trend. [8][9][10] Like other fields of learning that have been marked by development and evolution of communication skills, the quest for new and effective ways of passing anatomical ideas has produced much controversy and disagreement. 3,11 At the forefront of this controversy is the role of dissection in today's teaching of anatomy.…”

“…With these two major groups in mind we decided to answer the question; is there a difference in outcome between a cadaver-based study and a non-cadaver-based study? It is presently upheld by "modern anatomists" 10 …”