Advertisement

Designing Gross Anatomy Laboratory to Meet the Needs of Today’s Learner

  • Quenton WesselsEmail author
  • Willie Vorster
  • Christian Jacobson
Chapter

Abstract

There are three key aspects to anatomy pedagogy: the when, the how much, and the how. The relative importance of all three will vary to a certain extent depending on teaching methods but all require an adequate learning environment. In the design of this learning environment, student learning, local culture, and assessment all need to be taken into consideration. Within this context as much attention should be given to the development of the informal and hidden curricula as to that of the formal curriculum. Ultimately, it is assessment and its environment that will drive learning. Here the authors provide a succinct, practical, and problem-oriented approach to the design of gross anatomy laboratories that addresses the needs of today’s anatomy student. The authors also include key design considerations as well as aspects of the design process. This includes the provision for appropriate sensory stimulation, plumbing and electricity requirements, floor area for each student, the attainment of learning objectives, catering for assessment, e-learning capabilities, and a dynamic environment that can be suitably reconfigured.

Keywords

Objective Structure Clinical Examination Anatomy Laboratory Audience Response System User Client Teaching Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Drake RL. Anatomy education in a changing medical curriculum. Anat Rec. 1998;253:28–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drake RL, Lowrie DJ, Prewitt CM. Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec. 2002;269:118–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:253–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christopher DF, Harte K, George CF. The implementation of tomorrow’s doctors. Med Educ. 2002;36:282–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kinkade S. A snapshot of the status of problem-based learning in US medical schools. Acad Med. 2005;80:300–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee RMKW, Kwan C. The use of problem-based learning in medical education. J Med Educ. 1997;1:149–57.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harden RM. Developments in outcome-based education. Med Teach. 2002;24:117–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nieder GL, Parmelee DX, Stolfi A, Hudes PD. Team-based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. 2005;18:56–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. Team-based learning in anatomy: an efficient, effective, and economical strategy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(6):333–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. A survey of student perceptions of team-based learning in anatomy curriculum: Favorable views unrelated to grades. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:150–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Misch DA. Andragogy and medical education: are medical students internally motivated to learn? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2002;7:153–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heylings DJ. Anatomy 1999-2000: the curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Educ. 2002;36:702–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann Roy Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89:104–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McNulty JA, Sonntag B, Sinacore JM. Evaluation of computer-aided instruction in a gross anatomy course: a six-year study. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:2–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nieder GL, Nagy F. Analysis of medical students’ use of web-based resources for anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. 2002;15:409–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aziz MA, McKenzie JC, Wilson JS, Cowie RJ, Ayeni SA, Dunn BK. The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. Anat Rec. 2002;269:20–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parker LM. Anatomical dissection: why are we cutting it out? Dissection undergraduate teaching. ANZ J Surg. 2002;72:910–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trelease RB. Anatomy meets architecture: designing new laboratories for new anatomists. Anat Rec. 2006;289B:241–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fraher JP, Evans DJR. Training tomorrow’s anatomists today: a partnership approach. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:119–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:83–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lancaster LC, Stillman D. When generations collide: who they are, why they clash, how to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York: Harper Business; 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murray ND. Welcome to the future: the millennial generation. J Career Plan Employ. 1997;57:36–40.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Reilly B, Vella-Zarb K. Meet the future. Fortune. 2000;142(3):144–48.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis DA. Millennial teaching. Academe. 2003;89(1):19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zemke R. Here come the millennials. Training. 2001;38:44–9.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greene JRT. Design and development of a new facility for teaching and research in clinical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:34–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beery TA, Shell D, Gillespie G, Werdman E. The impact of learning space on teaching behaviors. Nurse Educ Pract. 2012.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2012.11.001
  28. 28.
    Hunley S, Schaller M. Assessing learning spaces. In: Oblinger DG, editors. Learning spaces. Boulder, Colo: EDUCAUSE; 2006. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102m.pdf
  29. 29.
    Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT. How college affects students: a third decade of research, vol. 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Subramanian A, Timberlake M, Mittakanti H, Lara M, Brandt ML. Novel educational approach for medical students: Improved retention rates using interactive medical software compared with traditional lecture-based format. J Surg Educ. 2011;69:253–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Issa N, Mayer RE, Schuller M, Wang E, Shapiro MB, DaRosa DA. Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles. Med Educ. 2013;47:388–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Issa N, Schuller M, Santacaterina S, Shapiro M, Wang E, Mayer RE, DaRosa DA. Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2011;45(8):818–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Caldwell JE. Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2007;6:9–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mastoridis S, Kladidis S. Coming to a lecture theatre near you: the ‘clicker’. Clin Teach. 2010;7:97–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    DiVall MV, Hayney MS, Marsh W, Neville MW, O’Barr S, Sheets ED, Calhoun LD. Perceptions of pharmacy students, faculty members and administrators on the use of technology in the classroom. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Prakash ES. Explicit constructivism: a missing link in ineffective lectures? Adv Physiol Educ. 2010;34:93–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lave J, Wegner E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Finn GM, Patten D, McLachlan JC. The impact of wearing scrubs on contextual learning. Med Teach. 2010;32(5):381–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bleakley A. Broadening conceptions of learning in medical education: the message from teamworking. Med Educ. 2006;40:150–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bleakley A, Bligh J, Browne J. Place matters: location in medical education. New York, NY: Springer; 2011.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nordquist J, Kitto S, Peller J, Ygge J, Reeves S. Focusing on future learning environments: exploring the role of space and place for interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(6):391–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ. 2006;40:243–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Malomo AO, Idowu OE, Osuagwu FC. Lessons from history: human anatomy, from the origin to the renaissance. Int J Morphol. 2006;24(1):99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Del Negro P, editor. The University of Padua: eight centuries of history. 1st ed. Padova, Italy: Signum; 2003. 296 p.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schumacher G-H. Theatrum anatomicum in history and today. Int J Morphol. 2007;25:15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Thiene G. Padua University: the role it has played in the history of medicine and cardiology and its position today. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:629–35.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Capener N. John Sheldon, F.R.S., and the Exeter Medical School. Proc R Soc Med. 1959; 52:231–238.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    JISC. Joint Information System Committee. Designing spaces for effective learning. 2006. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/eli_learningspaces.html
  49. 49.
    Goldman E. Building a low-cost gross anatomy laboratory: a big step for a small university. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:195–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.) Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. ASHRAE Standard 62–1999. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. 1999; 141 p.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wessels Q, Vorster W, Jacobson C. Anatomy education in Namibia: balancing facility design and curriculum development. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5:41–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Reeves RE, Aschenbrenner JE, Wordinger RJ, Roque RS, Sheedlo HJ. Improved dissection efficiency in the human gross anatomy laboratory by the integration of computers and modern technology. Clin Anat. 2004;17(4):337–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Van Note Chism N. Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In: Oblinger DG, editor. Learning spaces; 2006. Orlando, FL: Educause. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102b.pdf
  54. 54.
    Van Bommel WJM, Van den Beld GJ. Lighting for work: a review of visual and biological effects. Light Res Technol. 2004;36:255–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Viola AU, James LM, Schlangen LJM, Dijk DJ. Blue-enriched white light in the workplace improves self-reported alertness, performance and sleep quality. Scand J Environ Health. 2008;34:297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Baron RA, Rea MS, Daniels SJ. Effects of indoor lighting illuminance and spectral distribution on the performance of cognitive tasks and interpersonal behaviors: the potential mediating role of positive affect. Motiv Emot. 1992;16:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Higgins S, Hall E, Wall K, Woolner P, McCaughey C. The impact of school environments: a literature review. University of Newcastle: The Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Science; 2005.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Clark C, Sorqvist P. A three year update on the influence of noise on performance and behavior. Noise Healt. 2012;14:292–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brammer AJ, Laroche C. Noise and communication: a three-year update. Noise Health. 2012;14:281–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Norcinci J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 2007;29:855–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD. Product design and development. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; 2003. p. 384.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9):S63–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Johnson EO, Charchanti AV, Troupis TG. Modernization of an anatomy class: from conceptualization to implementation: a case for integrated multimodal-multidisciplinary teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(6):354–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quenton Wessels
    • 1
    Email author
  • Willie Vorster
    • 2
  • Christian Jacobson
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Lancaster Medical School, Faculty of Health and MedicineLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy, School of MedicineUniversity of NamibiaWindhoekNamibia
  3. 3.Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Biochemistry and Physiological ChemistryUniversity of NamibiaWindhoekNamibia
  4. 4.Department of BiologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations