Study preferences in anatomy education: a descriptive study including preliminary results*

Year 2017, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 99 - 103, 20.08.2017

Ekremcan Karaer Çağatay Barut

Abstract

Objectives: In anatomical education, there is a lack of consensus about the best or most efficient method used. Additionally, the learning style of students varies, and information related with the medical students’ preferences for learning anatomy is rather limited. Thus, this article aimed to identify the study preferences of medical students in Turkey.

Methods: Ninety-seven medical students aged between 19–26 years participated in the study. Participants were asked 16 questions related with the education system and study preferences of anatomy. Nine of the questions were related with the education system of their school in general and in terms of anatomy and seven of the questions were related with their way of studying anatomy, including time spent for studying, preference for a group or individual study, study materials and methods.

Results: 88.6% of the respondents indicated that integrated medical education was the education system used in their schools. Systematic anatomy was the main method (93.8%) chosen for anatomy. Plastic models were the most frequent preference for lab studies (90.7%) followed by prosections (58.8%), specimens (30.9%) and cadaver dissections (21.6%). Majority of the respondents preferred studying anatomy alone (86.6%). Furthermore, students stated their preference of study methods as one or more at the same time, and the distribution of these methods were as follows: correlation of structures with relations (53.6%), functions (52.6%), clinical situations (30.9%), memorizing with mnemonics (53.6%) or tables and lists (45.4%), flash cards (7.2%), and regular repetitions (40.2%).

Conclusion: Study preferences may lead changes in anatomy curricula in the future.

Keywords

anatomy, dissection preference, study

References

• 1. Brenner E, Maurer H, Moriggl B, Pomaroli A. General educational objectives matched by the educational method of a dissection lab. Ann Anat 2003;185:173229–30.
• 2. Kerby J, Shukur ZN, Shalhoub J. The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by medical students. Clin Anat 2011;24:489–97.
• 3. Mitchell BS. Learning styles in anatomy teaching and learning. In: Chen LK, Pawlina W, editors. Teaching anatomy: a practical guide. 1st ed. New York (NY): Springer; 2015. p. 23–30.
• 4. 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.
• 5. Anyanwu EG. Anatomy adventure: a board game for enhancing understanding of anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2014;7:153–60.
• 6. Benninger B. Google Glass, ultrasound and palpation: the anatomy teacher of the future? Clin Anat 2015;28:152–5.
• 7. Buenting M, Mueller T, Raupach T, Luers G, Wehrenberg U, Gehl A, Anders S. Post mortem CT scans as a supplementary teaching method in gross anatomy. Ann Anat 2016;208:165–9.
• 8. Burgess AW, Ramsey-Stewart G, May J, Mellis C. Team-based learning methods in teaching topographical anatomy by dissection. ANZ J Surg 2012;82:457–60.
• 9. Donnelly L, Patten D, White P, Finn G. Virtual human dissector as a learning tool for studying cross-sectional anatomy. Med Teach 2009;31:553–5.
• 10. Fitzpatrick CM, Kolesari GL, Brasel KJ. Teaching anatomy with surgeons’ tools: use of the laparoscope in clinical anatomy. Clin Anat 2001;14:349–53.
• 11. Fruhstorfer BH, Palmer J, Brydges S, Abrahams PH. The use of plastinated prosections for teaching anatomy – the view of medical students on the value of this learning resource. Clin Anat 2011;24:246–52.
• 12. Granger NA, Calleson DC, Henson OW, Juliano E, Wineski L, McDaniel MD, Burgoon JM. Use of web-based materials to enhance anatomy instruction in health sciences. Anat Rec B New Anat 2006; 289:121–7.
• 13. Jones DG. Re-inventing anatomy: the impact of plastination on how we see the human body. Clin Anat 2002;15:436–40.
• 14. Op Den Akker JW, Bohnen A, Oudegeest WJ, Hillen B. Giving color to a new curriculum: bodypaint as a tool in medical education. Clin Anat 2002;15:356–62.
• 15. Ruthenbeck GS, Carati CJ, Gibbins IL, Reynolds KJ. A virtual reality 3D jigsaw for teaching anatomy. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008;132:436–8.
• 16. Solyar A, Cuellar H, Sadoughi B, Olson TR, Fried MP. Endoscopic sinus surgery simulator as a teaching tool for anatomy education. Am J Surg 2008;196:120–4.
• 17. Winkelmann A, Hendrix S, Kiessling C. What do students actually do during a dissection course? First steps towards understanding a complex learning experience. Acad Med 2007;82:989–95.
• 18. Shankar N, Roopa R. Evaluation of a modified team based learning method for teaching general embryology to 1st year medical graduate students. Indian J Med Sci 2009;63:4–12.