Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 101–111 | Cite as

A Quantitative Analysis of Four Undergraduate Human Anatomy Laboratory Curricula: Approaches, Identified Structures, Concepts, and Thematic Emphases

  • Ann Marie Sparacino
  • Victor H. GonzalezEmail author
  • Sue Ball
  • Joanna J. Cielocha
  • Katharine Helm
  • David S. McLeod
Original Research
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

Human anatomy is a foundational course thatserves diverse pre-professional health care majors. However, limited information is available on the teaching approaches, content, and thematic emphases of this course at the undergraduate level when compared with that of medical and other graduate schools. Herein, we document and quantitatively evaluate the laboratory curriculum of four undergraduate human anatomy courses in the USA. For each course, we assess the total number of structures (terms requiring identification during an exam), concepts (terms requiring an explanation), and clinical applications. To facilitate further assessments, we also compare the content distribution of each course with that recommended by the American Association of Clinical Anatomists (AACA). Two courses followed a regional approach emphasizing the use of human cadavers, while the other two followed a system-based approach and used plastic models and non-human cadaveric materials (e.g., cats and sheep). The total amount of information presented to students differed significantly among curricula. The majority of terms (65–88%) taught to students referred to the identification of anatomical structures whereas clinical applications were rare (< 1.3%). Courses using a regional approach expected students to learn as much as twice the number of terms than those following a system-based approach. Functions, innervations, origins, and insertions of muscles are only included in the curriculum of the courses following a regional approach. The proportion of terms devoted to each anatomical module in all curricula was significantly different from each other, as well as from that of AACA recommendation. We discuss these differences in the curriculum, the challenges and limitations inherent with each teaching approach, as well as in the teaching materials used among the curricula. These quantitative analyses aim to provide insightful information about the structure of the undergraduate human anatomy laboratory curriculum and may prove useful when redesigning a course.

Keywords

Human anatomy curriculum Quantitative analysis Undergraduate education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank G. Burg, M. Gabriel, P. Kilkenny, D. Strong, Amy Comfort, and anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions that improve this work. All authors have read and accepted the final draft of the manuscript. JJC wishes to thank J. Hnida, MidWestern University, Glendale, Arizona for providing laboratory materials used at PSC. Partial support to V.H.G. was received through a NSF’s REU program (DBI 1560389).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Yiou R, Goodenough D. Applying problem-based learning to the teaching of anatomy: the example of Harvard Medical School. Surg Radiol Anat. 2006;28:189–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moxham BJ, Plaisant O, Smith CF, Pawlina W, McHanwell S. An approach toward the development of core syllabuses for the anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7:302–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Connolly SA, Gillingwater TH, Chandler C, Grant AW, Greig J, Meskell M, et al. The anatomical society’s core anatomy syllabus for undergraduate nursing. J Anat. 2018;232:721–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schofield KA. Anatomy education in occupational therapy curricula: perspectives of practitioners in the United States. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11:243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griff ER. Changing undergraduate human anatomy and physiology laboratories: perspectives from a large-enrollment course. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016;40:388–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaffer JF. Student performance in and perceptions of a high structure undergraduate human anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:516–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Husmann PR, O’Loughlin VD. Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anat Sci Educ. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777.
  8. 8.
    Eleazer CD, Kelso RS. Influence of study approaches and course design on academic success in the undergraduate anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11:496–509.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gonzalez VH, Ball S, Cramer R, Smith A. Anatomical and morphometric variations in the arterial system of the domestic cat. Anat Histol Embryol. 2015;44:428–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ahe.12154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waters JR, Van Metter P, Perrotti W, Drogo S, Cyr RJ. Cat dissection vs. sculpting human structures in clay: an analysis of two approaches to undergraduate human anatomy laboratory education. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005;29:29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Waters JR, Van Metter P, Perrotti W, Drogo S, Cyr RJ. Human clay models versus cat dissection: how the similarity between the classroom and the exam affects student performance. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35:227–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nayak S, Ramnaryan K, Somayaji SN. Anatomy that must be taught to a medical undergraduate: an interview-based survey in an Indian medical school. Anat Rec. 2005;285B:16–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pais D, Moxham BJ. Should gross anatomy be taught systemically or regionally? Eur J Anat. 2013;17:43–7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yammine K. The current status of anatomy knowledge: where are we now? Where do we need to go and how do we get there? Teach Learn Med. 2014;26:184–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:8410–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leonard RJ. A clinical anatomy curriculum for the medical student of the 21st century: gross anatomy. Clin Anat. 1996;9(2):71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grine FE. Regional human anatomy: a laboratory workbook for use with models and prosections. 5th ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2014.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keffer SL, Babcock SK. Human anatomy lab manual: a regional approach, 8th edn. Pearson Publishing; 2015.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grković I, Guić MM, Koŝta V, Poljičanin A, Čarić A, Vilović K. Designing anatomy program in modern medical curriculum: matter of balance. Croat Med J. 2009;50:49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM. Gray’s anatomy for students. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2010.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Falchikov N. Learning together: peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge-Falmer; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leveritt S, McKnight G, Edwards K, Pratten M, Merrick D. What anatomy is clinically useful and when should we be teaching it? Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:468–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kivell TL, Doyle SK, Madden RH, Mitchell TL, Sims EL. An interactive method for teaching anatomy of the human eye for medical students in ophthalmology clinical rotations. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:173–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McBride JM, Drake RL. Student-directed fresh tissue anatomy course for physician assistants. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:264–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gregory JK, Lachman N, Camp CL, Chen LP, Wojciech P. Restructuring a basic science course for core competencies: an example from anatomy teaching. Med Teach. 2009;31:855–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bruno PA, Green JKL, Illerbrun SL, Holness DA, Illerbrun SJ, Haus KA, et al. Students helping students: evaluating a pilot program of peer teaching for an undergraduate course in human anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(2):132–42.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kennedy GE, Judd TS, Churchward A, Gray K, Krause K-L. First year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives. Australas J Educ Technol. 2008;24:108–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saltarelli AJ, Roseth CJ, Saltarelli WA. Human cadavers vs. multimedia simulation: a study of student learning in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7:331–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mathiowetz V, Yu C-H, Quake-Rapp C. Comparison of a gross anatomy laboratory to online anatomy software for teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:52–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kibble J. Use of unsupervised online quizzes as formative assessment in a medical physiology course: effects of incentives on student participation and performance. Adv Physiol Educ. 2008;31:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Undergraduate Biology ProgramUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Biological SciencesSouthwestern Oklahoma State UniversityWeatherfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyRockhurst UniversityKansas CityUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health SciencesJames Madison UniversityHarrisonburgUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologyJames Madison UniversityHarrisonburgUSA

Personalised recommendations