与学生在课堂上解剖尸体相比,由合格的教学人员准备的尸体解剖是更高效、更有效的兽医解剖学教学模式。

IF 1.1 3区 农林科学 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Journal of veterinary medical education Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-17 DOI:10.3138/jvme-2024-0031
Shawna M Clement, Tyler A Ubben, Dustin T Yates
{"title":"与学生在课堂上解剖尸体相比,由合格的教学人员准备的尸体解剖是更高效、更有效的兽医解剖学教学模式。","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

兽医专业的传统教学方法是让学生对动物尸体进行区域解剖。解剖是有效的,但也是昂贵、耗时和让学生望而生畏的。这些因素以及用于大体解剖学的接触时间减少,使得我们有必要研究更省时省力的教学模式。我们试图确定从教师解剖的尸体上学习解剖是否是课堂尸体解剖的合适替代方法。兽医专业学生在三门课程中完成了九个单元的区域大体解剖学。在每个单元中,学生被随机分配到在教师解剖的尸体上学习该区域(即解剖学生,n = 25)或以小组形式自行解剖该区域(即解剖学生,n = 25)。与解剖学生相比,解剖学生平均每周在课堂上花费的时间少 18 分钟(p < .05)。尽管每周用于课外学习的时间相当,但在 56% 的实践单元考试和 44% 的整体单元考试中,解剖学生的成绩优于解剖学生(p < .05),而解剖学生仅在一次单元考试中优于解剖学生(p < .05)。在随后进行的评估知识保留情况的测验中,解剖学生的成绩也更好(p < .05)。调查反馈显示,学生对解剖的准确性更有信心,并重视解剖提供的效率。虽然他们发现了进行解剖的价值,并对获得的知识总体上感到满意,但许多学生表示对解剖感到胆怯,这减少了他们的体验。这些发现共同表明,专家解剖的尸体比课堂上的尸体解剖更省时,对学习兽医解剖学总体上也更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cadaveric Prosections Prepared by Qualified Instructional Staff Were More Efficient and Effective Teaching Modalities for Veterinary Gross Anatomy than In-Class Dissections by Students.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
30.00%
发文量
113
审稿时长
>36 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信