Skip to main content

Use of a Digital, Profession-Specific Dissection Guide Is Associated with Improved Examination Performance and Student Satisfaction

Abstract

Anatomical knowledge is requisite for effective physical therapy (PT) practice. Cadaver dissection is a popular teaching method employed in PT anatomy courses. Limited time in the laboratory requires effective dissection instructions. Several limitations of a printed, non-discipline specific dissection guide have been identified by students and instructors in anatomy curricula. The objective of this project was to evaluate the effect of using a digital, PT specific dissection guide on examination performance and student satisfaction. A digital guide was developed that incorporated improvements based on observations of student experiences using a printed guide. The digital guide covered two lower extremity regional dissections and was distributed for use during the summer 2017 course. Enhancements included clarification of dissection procedures, formative quizzes, image galleries, embedded videos, and a glossary of terms. Students used a printed guide for all other dissections in the course. The percentage of correct answers from practical examinations was calculated and compared between summer of 2015 (print) and 2017 (digital) courses. A survey consisting of nineteen five-point Likert items was distributed. The percentage of correct answers was significantly higher for the digital guide (91.7 ± 7.11%) compared with the print guide (84.2 ± 9.51%, P < 0.0001). On the survey, the median item rating was strongly agree for two, agree for fifteen, and neither agree or disagree for two. These results suggest that developing a curriculum specific, digital guide was effective in improving student knowledge and satisfaction. These results encourage development of additional content specific guides in a digital format.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig 3
Fig 4
Fig 5

References

  1. 1.

    Travill AA. The anatomical basis of clinical practice: an anatomy learning programme. Med Educ. 1977;11(6):377–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1977.tb00635.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat. 2009;2(6):253–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.117.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Drake RL, McBride JM, Pawlina W. An update on the status of anatomical sciences education in United States medical schools. Anat. 2014;7(4):321–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ogard WK. Outcomes related to a multimodal human anatomy course with decreased cadaver dissection in a doctor of physical therapy curriculum. J Phys Ther Educ. 2014;28(3):21–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Weddle ML, Sellheim DO. An integrative curriculum model preparing physical therapists for vision 2020 practice. J Phys Ther Educ. 2009;23(1):12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Mattingly GE, Barnes CE. Teaching human anatomy in physical therapy education in the United States: a survey. Phys Ther. 1994;74(8):720–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cope JM, Precht MC, Klinepeter A, Powell B, Hannah MC. Counting the dead: who is teaching anatomy to physical therapy students? J Phys Ther Educ. 2017;31(2):6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jensen GM, Nordstrom T, Mostrom E, Hack LM, Gwyer J. National study of excellence and innovation in physical therapist education: part 1—design, method, and results | physical therapy | Oxford academic. Phys Ther. 2017;97(9):857–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Older J. Anatomy: a must for teaching the next generation. Surg J R Coll Surg Edinb Irel. 2004;2(2):79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1479-666x(04)80050-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chambers J, Emlyn-Jones D. Keeping dissection alive for medical students. Anat. 2009;2(6):302–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Latman NS, Lanier R. Gross anatomy course content and teaching methodology in allied health: clinicians’ experiences and recommendations. Clin Anat. 2001;14(2):152–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kirschner PA. Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learn Instr. 2002;12:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bellier A, Cavalie G, Masson P, Palombi O, Chaffanjon P. Feedback on the usefulness of an illustrated guidebook in an anatomical dissection course. Surg Radiol Anat. 2019;41(10):1173–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-019-02194-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gardiner E, Musto RG. The Electronic Book. The Oxford Companion to the Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Pickering JD. Introduction of an anatomy eBook enhances assessment outcomes. Med Educ. 2015;49(5):522–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Stirling A, Birt J. An enriched multimedia eBook application to facilitate learning of anatomy. Anat. 2014;7(1):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Stewart S, Choudhury B. Mobile technology: Creation and use of an iBook to teach the anatomy of the brachial plexus. Anat. 2015;8(5):429–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mayfield CH, Ohara PT, O'Sullivan PS. Perceptions of a mobile technology on learning strategies in the anatomy laboratory. Anat. 2013;6(2):81–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Greene SJ. The use of anatomical dissection videos in medical education. Anat. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1860.

  20. 20.

    Kirkpatrick DL. Francisco JDKS. Evaluating training programs: Berrett Koehler Publishers; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    McHugh ML. Multiple comparison analysis testing in ANOVA. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2011;21(3):203–9. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2011.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Faul F, Eridfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Jamieson S. Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med Educ. 2004;38(12):1217–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chatterjee D, Corral J. How to write well-defined learning objectives. J Educ Perioper Med. 2018;19(4):1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cohen SA. Instructional alignment: searching for a magic bullet. Educ Res. 1987;16(8):16–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X016008016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Mayer RE. Designing multimedia instruction in anatomy: an evidence-based approach. Clin Anat. 2018:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23265.

  27. 27.

    Sumeracki MA, Weinstein Y. Six Strategies for effective learning. Acad Med. 2018;93(4):666. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Johnson IP, Palmer E, Burton J, Brockhouse M. Online learning resources in anatomy: what do students think? Clin Anat. 2013;26(5):556–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs. Nancey Bookstein and Cindy Armstrong for feedback on a draft of the dissection guide, the students for their willing participation, and the donors and their families for making this research possible.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Pascoe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board, Protocol #16-2626) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 57.7 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pascoe, M.A., Betts, K. Use of a Digital, Profession-Specific Dissection Guide Is Associated with Improved Examination Performance and Student Satisfaction. Med.Sci.Educ. 30, 1025–1034 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01000-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gross anatomy laboratory
  • Technology-enhanced learning
  • Learning outcomes
  • eBook
  • Dissection guide
  • Digital assets