Cadaveric Prosections Prepared by Qualified Instructional Staff Were More Efficient and Effective Teaching Modalities for Veterinary Gross Anatomy than In-Class Dissections by Students.
IF 1.1 3区 农林科学Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
{"title":"Cadaveric Prosections Prepared by Qualified Instructional Staff Were More Efficient and Effective Teaching Modalities for Veterinary Gross Anatomy than In-Class Dissections by Students.","authors":"Shawna M Clement, Tyler A Ubben, Dustin T Yates","doi":"10.3138/jvme-2024-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Veterinary programs traditionally teach gross anatomy by having students perform regional dissections on animal cadavers. Dissection is effective but also costly, time consuming, and intimidating for students. These factors, along with reduced contact hours devoted to gross anatomy, warrant investigation of more time-efficient teaching modalities. We sought to determine whether learning anatomy from instructor-prosected cadavers is a suitable alternative to in-class cadaveric dissections. Veterinary students completed nine units of regional gross anatomy over three courses. For each unit, students were randomly assigned to study the region on instructor-prosected cadavers (i.e., prosection students, <i>n</i> = 25) or perform their own dissection of the region in small groups (i.e., dissection students, <i>n</i> = 25). Prosection students spent on average 18 minutes/week less (<i>p</i> < .05) in class than dissection students. Despite comparable amounts of time spent studying outside of class each week, prosection students outperformed (<i>p</i> < .05) dissection students on 56% of the practical unit exams and 44% of the overall unit exams, whereas dissection students outperformed (<i>p</i> < .05) prosection students on only a single unit exam. Prosection students also performed better (<i>p</i> < .05) on subsequent quizzes administered to assess knowledge retention. Survey responses indicated that students were more confident in the accuracy of prosections and valued the efficiency they provided. Although they found value in performing dissections and were generally satisfied with the knowledge they gained, many students reported feeling timid toward dissecting, which diminished the experience. Together, these findings demonstrate that expertly prosected cadavers were more time-efficient than in-class cadaveric dissections and were generally more effective for learning gross veterinary anatomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":17575,"journal":{"name":"Journal of veterinary medical education","volume":"51 5","pages":"593-609"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of veterinary medical education","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme-2024-0031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Veterinary programs traditionally teach gross anatomy by having students perform regional dissections on animal cadavers. Dissection is effective but also costly, time consuming, and intimidating for students. These factors, along with reduced contact hours devoted to gross anatomy, warrant investigation of more time-efficient teaching modalities. We sought to determine whether learning anatomy from instructor-prosected cadavers is a suitable alternative to in-class cadaveric dissections. Veterinary students completed nine units of regional gross anatomy over three courses. For each unit, students were randomly assigned to study the region on instructor-prosected cadavers (i.e., prosection students, n = 25) or perform their own dissection of the region in small groups (i.e., dissection students, n = 25). Prosection students spent on average 18 minutes/week less (p < .05) in class than dissection students. Despite comparable amounts of time spent studying outside of class each week, prosection students outperformed (p < .05) dissection students on 56% of the practical unit exams and 44% of the overall unit exams, whereas dissection students outperformed (p < .05) prosection students on only a single unit exam. Prosection students also performed better (p < .05) on subsequent quizzes administered to assess knowledge retention. Survey responses indicated that students were more confident in the accuracy of prosections and valued the efficiency they provided. Although they found value in performing dissections and were generally satisfied with the knowledge they gained, many students reported feeling timid toward dissecting, which diminished the experience. Together, these findings demonstrate that expertly prosected cadavers were more time-efficient than in-class cadaveric dissections and were generally more effective for learning gross veterinary anatomy.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Veterinary Medical Education (JVME) is the peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC). As an internationally distributed journal, JVME provides a forum for the exchange of ideas, research, and discoveries about veterinary medical education. This exchange benefits veterinary faculty, students, and the veterinary profession as a whole by preparing veterinarians to better perform their professional activities and to meet the needs of society.
The journal’s areas of focus include best practices and educational methods in veterinary education; recruitment, training, and mentoring of students at all levels of education, including undergraduate, graduate, veterinary technology, and continuing education; clinical instruction and assessment; institutional policy; and other challenges and issues faced by veterinary educators domestically and internationally. Veterinary faculty of all countries are encouraged to participate as contributors, reviewers, and institutional representatives.