Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schofield KA. Anatomy education in occupational therapy curricula: perspectives of practitioners in the United States. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11:243–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Griff ER. Changing undergraduate human anatomy and physiology laboratories: perspectives from a large-enrollment course. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016;40:388–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shaffer JF. Student performance in and perceptions of a high structure undergraduate human anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:516–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pais D, Moxham BJ. Should gross anatomy be taught systemically or regionally? Eur J Anat. 2013;17:43–7.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Leonard RJ. A clinical anatomy curriculum for the medical student of the 21st century: gross anatomy. Clin Anat. 1996;9(2):71–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Keffer SL, Babcock SK. Human anatomy lab manual: a regional approach, 8th edn. Pearson Publishing; 2015.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM. Gray’s anatomy for students. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Falchikov N. Learning together: peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge-Falmer; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McBride JM, Drake RL. Student-directed fresh tissue anatomy course for physician assistants. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:264–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Undergraduate Biology Program, University of Kansas, Haworth Hall, 1200 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA

    Ann Marie Sparacino & Victor H. Gonzalez

  2. Biological Sciences, Southwestern Oklahoma State University, 100 Campus Drive, Weatherford, OK, 73096, USA

    Sue Ball

  3. Department of Biology, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO, 64110, USA

    Joanna J. Cielocha

  4. Department of Health Sciences, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, USA

    Katharine Helm

  5. Department of Biology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, USA

    David S. McLeod

Authors
  1. Ann Marie Sparacino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Victor H. Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sue Ball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joanna J. Cielocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Katharine Helm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David S. McLeod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor H. Gonzalez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sparacino, A.M., Gonzalez, V.H., Ball, S. et al. A Quantitative Analysis of Four Undergraduate Human Anatomy Laboratory Curricula: Approaches, Identified Structures, Concepts, and Thematic Emphases. Med.Sci.Educ. 29, 101–111 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-00639-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-00639-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation