Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 173–180 | Cite as

Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students

  • Samy A. Azer
  • Norm Eizenberg



The introduction of a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum at the School of Medicine of the University of Melbourne has necessitated a reduction in the number of lectures and limited the use of dissection in teaching anatomy. In the new curriculum, students learn the anatomy of different body systems using PBL tutorials, practical classes, pre-dissected specimens, computer-aided learning multimedia and a few dissection classes. The aims of this study are: (1) to assess the views of first- and second-year medical students on the importance of dissection in learning about the anatomy, (2) to assess if students’ views have been affected by demographic variables such as gender, academic background and being a local or an international student, and (3) to assess which educational tools helped them most in learning the anatomy and whether dissection sessions have helped them in better understanding anatomy.


First- and second-year students enrolled in the medical course participated in this study. Students were asked to fill out a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. Data was analysed using Mann–Whitney’s U test, Wilcoxon’s signed-ranks or the calculation of the Chi-square value.


The response rates were 89% for both first- and second-year students. Compared to second-year students, first-year students perceived dissection to be important for deep understanding of anatomy (P < 0.001), making learning interesting (P < 0.001) and introducing them to emergency procedures (P < 0.001). Further, they preferred dissection over any other approach (P < 0.001). First-year students ranked dissection (44%), textbooks (23%), computer-aided learning (CAL), multimedia (10%), self-directed learning (6%) and lectures (5%) as the most valuable resources for learning anatomy, whereas second-year students found textbooks (38%), dissection (18%), pre-dissected specimens (11%), self-directed learning (9%), lectures (7%) and CAL programs (7%) as most useful. Neither of the groups showed a significant preference for pre-dissected specimens, CAL multimedia or lectures over dissection.


Both first- and second-year students, regardless of their gender, academic background, or citizenship felt that the time devoted to dissection classes were not adequate. Students agreed that dissection deepened their understanding of anatomical structures, provided them with a three-dimensional perspective of structures and helped them recall what they learnt. Although their perception about the importance of dissection changed as they progressed in the course, good anatomy textbooks were perceived as an excellent resource for learning anatomy. Interestingly, innovations used in teaching anatomy, such as interactive multimedia resources, have not replaced students’ perceptions about the importance of dissection.


Anatomy Dissection Medical students Undergraduate curriculum Learning resources Pedagogy Problem-based learning 



The authors would like to thank the medical students at the University of Melbourne for their contribution to this study. We would also like to thank medical students, Ms Tammy Teoh Hans Qi and Ms Tan Hong Jin, from the University of Science, Malaysia who helped in the early stages of this project during their week-long visit to our unit.


  1. 1.
    Azer SA (2004) A multimedia CD-ROM tool to improve student understanding of bile salts and bilirubin metabolism: evaluation of its use in a medical hybrid PBL course. Adv Physiol Educ 29:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boon JM, Meiring JH, Richards PA et al (2001) Evaluation of clinical relevance of problem-oriented teaching in undergraduate anatomy at the University of Pretoria. Surg Radiol Anat 23:57–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns RB (2000) Introduction to research methods, 4th edn. Longman, London, pp 20–44Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell MJ, Machin D (1990) Medical statistics: a commonsense approach. Wiley, New York, pp 10–35Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charlton R, Dovey SM, Jones DG, Blunt A (1994) Effects of cadaver dissection on the attitudes of medical students. Med Educ 28:290–295PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drake RL, Lowrie DJ, Prewitt CM (2002) Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec 269:118–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dziobon MD, Roberts ISD, Benbow EW (2000) Attitude of nursing staff to the autopsy. J Adv Nurs 32:969–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evans EJ, Fitzgibbon GH (1992) The dissecting room: reactions of first year medical students. Clin Anat 5:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ganguly P, Chakravarty M, Latif NA et al (2003) Teaching of anatomy in a problem-based curriculum at the Arabian Gulf University: the new face of the museum. Clin Anat 16:256–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geuna S, Giacobini-Robecchi MG (2002) The use of brainstorming for teaching human anatomy. Anat Rec New Anat 269:214–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hinduja K, Samuel R, Mitchell S (2005) Problem-based learning: is anatomy a casualty? Surgeon 3:84–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horne Dj, Tiller JWG, Eizenberg N et al (1990) Reactions of first-year medical students to their initial encounter with a cadaver in the dissecting room. Acad Med 65:645–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jastrow H, Vollrath L (2002) Anatomy online: presentation of a detailed WWW atlas of human gross anatomy—reference for medical education. Clin Anat 15:402–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jastrow H, Vollrath L (2003) Teaching and learning gross anatomy using modern electronic media based on the visible human project. Clin Anat 16:44–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kennedy D, Eizenberg N, Kennedy G (2000) An evaluation of the use of multiple perspectives in the design of computer facilitated learning. Aust J Educ Technol 16:13–25Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Latman NS, Lanier R (2001) Gross anatomy course content and teaching methodology in allied health: clinicians’ experiences and recommendations. Clin Anat 14:152–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lempp HK (2005) Perceptions of dissection by students in one medical school: beyond learning about anatomy. A qualitative study. Med Educ 39:318–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marks SC Jr (2000) The role of three-dimensional information in health care and medical education: the implications for anatomy and dissection. Clin Anat 13:448–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGravey MA, Farrell T, Conroy RM et al (2001) Dissection: a positive experience. Clin Anat 14:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McNulty JA, Halama J, Espiritu B (2004) Evaluation of computer-aided instruction in the medical gross anatomy curriculum. Clin Anat 17:73–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nnodim JO (1996) Preclinical student reactions to dissection, death, and dying. Clin Anat 9:175–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Older J (2004) Anatomy: a must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon 2:79–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Op Den Akker JW, Bohnen A, Oudegeest WJ et al (2002) Giving color to a new curriculum: bodypaint as a tool in medical education. Clin Anat 15:356–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prince KJ, van Mameren H, Hylkema N et al (2003) Does problem-based learning lead to deficiencies in basic science knowledge? An empirical case on anatomy. Med Educ 37:15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rizzolo LJ, Aden M, Stewart WB (2002) Correlation of web usage and exam performance in a human anatomy and development course. Clin Anat 15:351–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shaffer K (2004) Teaching anatomy in the digital world. New Engl J Med 351:1279–1281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Snelling J, Sahai A, Ellis H (2003) Attitude of medical and dental students to dissection. Clin Anat 16:165–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stone DH (1993) Design a questionnaire. BMJ 307:1264–1266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Was a Senior Lecturer in Medical Education at the Faculty Education Unit, School of MedicineDentistry and Health Sciences, University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy and Cell BiologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Professor in Medical Education, School of MedicineUniversity of ToyamaToyamaJapan

Personalised recommendations