Korean J Phys Anthropol.  2018 Sep;31(3):83-89. 10.11637/kjpa.2018.31.3.83.

The Impact of Alternating Dissection in Conjunction with Reciprocal Peer Teaching on Practical Exam Scores in a Medical Anatomy Course

• Kim YH
• Hong C
• Oh SO
• Yoon S
• Kim MJ
• Ju S
• Yune SJ
• Baek S

• KMID: 2429145
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.11637/kjpa.2018.31.3.83

Abstract

The reformation of medical curriculum induced the reduction of anatomy course schedule especially in contact hours in anatomy laboratory. It has led to the use of more efficient teaching approaches in anatomy laboratory. The purpose of this work provide a detailed analysis of alternating dissections with reciprocal peer teaching in anatomy laboratory. Students were assigned alphabetically, in teams of eight or nine, to each dissecting table. The team was subdivided into two groups, A and B, each group dissected every other session. Students excused from dissection spent their time with team-based learning and self-directed learning. Dissected peer-teaching groups presented structures from the dissection to groups absent during dissection. Practical exam scores of the alternating dissection indicated no significant difference with those of classical dissection of previous year. Subgroup analysis of practical exam scores in alternating dissection was also no significant difference between group A and B. Assessment of question types showed that correction rates of questions in the dissected region was significantly higher on dissection group assignment. There were 9 questions (out of 86) in which there was a significant difference in correction rates between A and B groups. In conclusion, the laboratory paradigm of alternating dissection with reciprocal peer teaching demonstrated an effective method of learning gross anatomy laboratory for first year medical students.

Keyword

Alternating dissection; Reciprocal peer teaching; Practical exam scores

MeSH Terms

Appointments and Schedules
Curriculum
Humans
Learning
Methods
Students, Medical

Reference

References

1. Hwang YI. Analysis of anatomy education in Korean medical schools. In: Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of Korean Association of Anatomists. Korean Association of Anatomists. 2009; 59:53.

2. Patel KM, Moxham BJ. The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by professional anatomists. Clin Anat. 2008; 21:182–9.

3. 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; 29:173–80.

4. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Ann Anat. 2016; 208:151–7.

5. Fleagle TR, Borcherding NC, Harris J, Hoffamnn DS. Application of flipped classroom pedagogy to the human gross anatomy laboratory: Student preferences and learning outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2018; 11:385–96.

6. Lachman N, Pawlina W. Integrating professionalism in early medical education: The theory and application of re-flective practice in the anatomy curriculum. Clin Anat. 2006; 19:456–60.

7. Granger NA. Dissection laboratory is vital to medical gross anatomy education. Anat Rec. 2004; 281B:6–8.

8. Leung KK, Lu KS, Huang TS, Hsieh BS. Anatomy instruction in medical schools: Connecting the past and the future. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Prac. 2006; 11:209–15.

9. Nnodim JO. Learning human anatomy: By dissection or from prosections? Med Educ. 1990; 24:389–95.

10. Dinsmore CE, Daugherty S, Zeitz HJ. Teaching and learning gross anatomy: Dissection, prosection, or both of the above? Clin Anat. 1999; 12:110–4.

11. Craig S, Tait N, Boers D, Mcandrew D. Review of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools. ANZ J Surg. 2010; 80:212–6.

12. Sandra A, Ferguson KJ. Analysis of gross anatomy laboratory performance using a student dissection/presentation teaching method. Teach Learn Med. 1998; 10:158–61.

13. McWhorter DL, Forester JP. Effects of an alternating dissection schedule on gross anatomy laboratory practical performance. Clin Anat. 2004; 17:144–8.

14. Granger NA, Calleson D. The impact of alternating dissection on student performance in a medical anatomy course: Are dissection videos an effective substitute for actual dissection? Clin Anat. 2007; 20:315–20.

15. Wilson AB, Petty M, Williams JM, Thorp LE. An investigation of alternating group dissections in medical gross anatomy. Teach Learn Med. 2011; 23:46–52.

16. Pizzimenti MA, Pantazis N, Sandra A, Hoffmann DS, Le-noch S, Ferguson KJ. Dissection and dissection-associated required experiences improve student performance in gross anatomy: Differences among quartiles. Anat Sci Educ. 2015; 9:238–46.

17. Handleman WJ, Boss M. Reciprocal peer teaching by medical students in the gross anatomy laboratory. Med Educ. 1986; 61:674–80.

18. Krych AJ, March CN, Bryan RE, Peake BJ, Pawlina W, Carmichael SW. Reciprocal peer teaching: Students teaching students in the gross anatomy laboratory. Clin Anat. 2005; 18:296–301.

19. Bentley BS, Hill RV. Objective and subjective assessment of reciprocal peer teaching in medical gross anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2:143–9.

20. Nnodim JO. A controlled trial of peer-teaching in practical gross anatomy. Clin Anat. 1997; 10:112–7.

21. Johnson JH. Importance of dissection in learning anatomy: Personal dissection versus peer teaching. Clin Anat. 2002; 18:38–44.