Dissection versus Prosection: A Comparative Assessment of the Course Experiences, Approaches to Learning, and Academic Performance of Non‐medical Undergraduate Students in Human Anatomy

Abstract

Many institutions rely upon prosection‐based laboratories as more resource‐efficient and time‐effective alternatives to traditional cadaver dissection for human anatomy education. To facilitate growing enrollment numbers despite resource limitations, the University of Guelph (a non‐medical institution) introduced a modified “stepwise” prosection‐based laboratory cohort to supplement a dissection‐based course. In this design, all students attended the same lectures, but those in the dissection‐based cohort learned by performing regional dissections and students in the prosection‐based cohort studied from those dissections. Prosection students thereby witnessed a “slow reveal” of structures throughout the course. This study compared the perceived course experiences, student approaches to learning, and academic performance between the two groups. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to isolate the effect of the laboratory environment on student approaches to learning and academic performance from demographic and situational covariates. Both groups reported positive course experience ratings and high average final grades that were not statistically dissimilar (P > 0.05), increased reliance on deep approaches to learning (P = 0.002), and decreased reliance on surface approaches to learning (P = 0.023). When controlling for covariates, participation in dissection had small but statistically significant positive associations with deep approaches to learning (P = 0.043), performance on laboratory oral assessments (P < 0.001), and average final grades (P = 0.039). Ultimately, both designs promoted meaningful learning and desirable performance outcomes, indicating that both dissection and stepwise prosection have the potential to facilitate high quality human anatomy instruction.

Responding to Covid‐19: A thematic analysis of students' perspectives on modified learning activities during an emergency transition to remote human anatomy education

“…Viewing physical structures with true stereopsis has been shown to be crucial to learning in human anatomy (Wainman et al, 2018(Wainman et al, , 2020, especially for students with low visuospatial abilities (Cui et al, 2017;Bogomolova et al, 2020;Meyer & Cui, 2020;Roach et al, 2021). Furthermore, in-person laboratory environments have been shown to promote deep rather than surface approaches to learning in anatomy (Smith & Mathias, 2010;McWatt et al, 2021), which are associated with higher quality learning outcomes (Pandey & Zimitat, 2007). It is possible that the loss of these features from the course learning activities had a negative impact on students' confidence in their anatomy knowledge and spatial understanding, both of which were reflected in the students' complaints about being tested on cadaveric images in this study and among other groups (Singal et al, 2021).…”

No cuts, no buts: Satisfaction of first‐year medical students with a hybrid prosection‐based model for learning gross anatomy during the Covid‐19 pandemic

“…The preference for a hybrid model even assuming no health risk was surprising, as cadaveric dissection is generally considered not only a rite of passage, but also the most effective method of anatomical education (Granger, 2004 ; Winkelmann, 2007 ; Ghosh, 2017 ; Franchi, 2020 ; Ross et al, 2021 ; Zibis et al, 2021 ). Students may prefer a hybrid model because it allows them to spend more time studying at home, easing the adjustment to medical school (Cuddy et al, 2013 ; Kinirons et al, 2019 ; McWatt et al, 2021 ). Nevertheless, in spite of the given health risk posed by Covid‐19, students still preferred to retain some form of in‐person cadaveric learning in the form of prosections.…”

“…Foreign Medical Graduate Program status, anatomy session, sex, age, ethnicity, individuals residing in primary residence, and previous gross anatomy experience were included in the models as fixed effects. As many studies have demonstrated that a student's preconceived notions about gross anatomy often influence their perception of the course overall (Kerby et al, 2011 ; Jeyakumar et al, 2020 ; McWatt et al, 2021 ), students' response to “Assuming no health risk to yourself or others, what would be your ideal method of learning anatomy?” was also included as an additional fixed effect in the model.…”

“…The preference for a hybrid model even assuming no health risk was surprising, as cadaveric dissection is generally considered not only a rite of passage, but also the most effective method of anatomical education (Granger, 2004;Winkelmann, 2007;Ghosh, 2017;Franchi, 2020;Ross et al, 2021;Zibis et al, 2021). Students may prefer a hybrid model because it allows them to spend more time studying at home, easing the adjustment to medical school (Cuddy et al, 2013;Kinirons et al, 2019;McWatt et al, 2021) a For some questions, all 144 participants did not provide a response and in these instances, a revised n is provided. Data were collected based on the five-point Likert scale, following scale was used: for questions 1 to 5 and 12 (1 = very unsatisfied; 5 = very satisfied); for questions 6 to 9…”

Investigating the Effect of the State, Stability, and Change in Deep Approaches to Learning From Kindergarten to Third Grade: A Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Indicator-Specific Growth Model Approach

“…Most research related to deep approaches to learning have focused on its relationship to achievement and involved mostly students above the age of six ( Fryer and Vermunt, 2018 ; Khan et al, 2018 ; Rentzios et al, 2019 ; Chan et al, 2021 ; McWatt et al, 2021 ; Piumatti et al, 2021 ). For example, Duff et al (2004) examined the cross-sectional relationship between deep approaches to learning and grade-point average among undergraduate students using a structural equation modeling analysis.…”