Anat Cell Biol.  2017 Dec;50(4):255-260. 10.5115/acb.2017.50.4.255.

Learning styles and strategies preferences of Iranian medical students in gross anatomy courses and their correlations with gender

• Atlasi MA
• Moravveji
• Nikzad H
• Mehrabadi
• Naderian H

• KMID: 2399893
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5115/acb.2017.50.4.255

Abstract

The learning approaches can help anatomy teachers design a suitable curriculum in harmony with their students' learning styles. The research objective is to evaluate gross anatomy learning styles and strategies preferences of Iranian medical students at Kashan University of Medical Sciences (KAUMS). This cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was carried out on 237 Iranian medical students. The students answered questions on approaches to learning anatomy and expressed opinions about learning anatomy in medical curriculum. The data were analyzed to disclose statistically significant differences between male and female students. Iranian male and female students were interested in learning anatomy using notes, plastic models, pictures and diagrams, clinical context, dissection and prosection of cadavers; however, they rarely used cross-sectional images and web-based resources. Both groups of medical students used region and system in learning anatomy. However, there existed some striking differences, particularly in having difficulty in studying anatomy using cadaveric specimens, using books alone, and learning it in small groups. Male students were less interested in learning with cadavers than female counterparts. However, female students were more interested in learning anatomy in small groups. This study suggests that instructors should design gross anatomy curriculum based on limitations of using dissection of cadaver in Iranian universities, emphasis on the applied anatomy, and learning of gross anatomy in small groups.

Keyword

Anatomy; Education; Culture; Learning; Students

MeSH Terms

Cadaver
Curriculum
Education
Female
Humans
Learning*
Male
Plastics
Strikes, Employee
Students, Medical*
Plastics

Reference

1. Azer SA, Eizenberg N. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat. 2007; 29:173–180. PMID: 17318286.

2. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ. 2010; 3:83–93. PMID: 20205265.

3. Ghosh SK. Human cadaveric dissection: a historical account from ancient Greece to the modern era. Anat Cell Biol. 2015; 48:153–169. PMID: 26417475.

4. McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ. 2004; 38:418–424. PMID: 15025643.

5. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2008; 9:105–119. PMID: 26162104.

6. Wehrwein EA, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007; 31:153–157. PMID: 17562903.

7. Mitchell BS, Xu Q, Jin L, Patten D, Gouldsborough I. A cross-cultural comparison of anatomy learning: learning styles and strategies. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2:49–60. PMID: 19347948.

8. Abdallah AR, Al-zalabani A, Alqabshawi R. Preferred learning styles among prospective research methodology course students at Taibah University, Saudi Arabia. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2013; 88:3–7. PMID: 23528525.

9. Mustafa AG, Allouh MZ, Mustafa IG, Hoja IM. Anatomy learning styles and strategies among Jordanian and Malaysian medical students: the impact of culture on learning anatomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2013; 35:435–441. PMID: 23292088.

10. Zurada A, Gielecki JS, Osman N, Tubbs RS, Loukas M, Zurada-Zielińska A, Bedi N, Nowak D. The study techniques of Asian, American, and European medical students during gross anatomy and neuroanatomy courses in Poland. Surg Radiol Anat. 2011; 33:161–169. PMID: 20734194.

11. Nuzhat A, Salem RO, Al Hamdan N, Ashour N. Gender differences in learning styles and academic performance of medical students in Saudi Arabia. Med Teach. 2013; 35(Suppl 1):S78–S82. PMID: 23581901.

12. Slater JA, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Does gender influence learning style preferences of first-year medical students? Adv Physiol Educ. 2007; 31:336–342. PMID: 18057406.

13. Bleakley A. Gender matters in medical education. Med Educ. 2013; 47:59–70. PMID: 23278826.

14. Cortazzi M, Jin L, Wall D, Cavendish S. Sharing learning through narrative communication. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2001; 36:252–257. PMID: 11340792.

15. Jin L, Hill H. Students' expectations of learning key skills and knowledge. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2001; 36:333–338. PMID: 11340807.

16. D'Eon MF. Knowledge loss of medical students on first year basic science courses at the University of Saskatchewan. BMC Med Educ. 2006; 6:5. PMID: 16412241.

17. Rowland S, Ahmed K, Davies DC, Ashrafian H, Patel V, Darzi A, Paraskeva PA, Athanasiou T. Assessment of anatomical knowledge for clinical practice: perceptions of clinicians and students. Surg Radiol Anat. 2011; 33:263–269. PMID: 21113711.

18. McKeown PP, Heylings DJ, Stevenson M, McKelvey KJ, Nixon JR, McCluskey DR. The impact of curricular change on medical students' knowledge of anatomy. Med Educ. 2003; 37:954–961. PMID: 14629407.

19. Abbasi Asl J, Nikzad H, Taherian A, Atlasi MA, Naderian H, Mousavi G, Kashani MM, Omidi A. Cultural acceptability and personal willingness of Iranian students toward cadaveric donation. Anat Sci Educ. 2017; 10:120–126. PMID: 27517382.

20. Bataineh ZM, Hijazi TA, Hijleh MF. Attitudes and reactions of Jordanian medical students to the dissecting room. Surg Radiol Anat. 2006; 28:416–421. PMID: 16568219.

21. LaFleur WR. From agape to organs: religious difference between Japan and America in judging the ethics of transplant. Zygon. 2002; 37:623–642. PMID: 15174443.

22. Dissabandara LO, Nirthanan SN, Khoo TK, Tedman R. Role of cadaveric dissections in modern medical curricula: a study on student perceptions. Anat Cell Biol. 2015; 48:205–212. PMID: 26417481.

23. Romero-Reverón R. Venezuelan surgeons view concerning teaching human anatomical dissection. Anat Cell Biol. 2017; 50:12–16. PMID: 28417050.

24. Sándor I, Birkás E, Győrffy Z. The effects of dissection-room experiences and related coping strategies among Hungarian medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2015; 15:73. PMID: 25880170.

25. McNulty JA, Sonntag B, Sinacore JM. Evaluation of computer-aided instruction in a gross anatomy course: a six-year study. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2:2–8. PMID: 19217066.

26. Petersson H, Sinkvist D, Wang C, Smedby O. Web-based interactive 3D visualization as a tool for improved anatomy learning. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2:61–68. PMID: 19363804.

27. Chan LK, Ganguly PK. Evaluation of small-group teaching in human gross anatomy in a Caribbean medical school. Anat Sci Educ. 2008; 1:19–22. PMID: 19177374.

28. Dolmans DH, Schmidt HG. What do we know about cognitive and motivational effects of small group tutorials in problem-based learning? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006; 11:321–336. PMID: 16953462.

29. Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Adv Physiol Educ. 2006; 30:13–16. PMID: 16481603.

30. Sarabi-Asiabar A, Jafari M, Sadeghifar J, Tofighi S, Zaboli R, Peyman H, Salimi M, Shams L. The relationship between learning style preferences and gender, educational major and status in first year medical students: a survey study from iran. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015; 17:e18250. PMID: 25763269.