Advertisement

Teaching Anatomy: Prosections and Dissections

  • Nalini PatherEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Anatomy provides a rich environment to learn from cadaveric resources. Cadaveric resources are a rich environment for learning anatomy. Anatomy laboratory sessions can use cadaveric resources in either dissection- or prosection-based modes of teaching. Each mode presents advantages in how it allows students to examine and explore the three-dimensional structural organization of the human body. When designing anatomy laboratory sessions, the advantages of each of these modes need to be considered. Once a mode of teaching has been determined, learning activities should be designed that are engaging, contextual and clinically relevant. Anatomy laboratory activities can creatively embed graduate attributes like teamwork, critical thinking, and communication skills. Multidimensional learning activities that relate cadaveric anatomy to living anatomy will ensure student engagement and enthusiasm. Designing and implementing anatomy laboratory activities should be based on a model of continuous improvement that involves review and refinement based on student feedback and evaluation.

Keywords

Laboratory Session Cognitive Load Theory Carpal Tunnel Release Anatomy Laboratory Teaching Anatomy 
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.
    Yeager VL. Learning gross anatomy: dissection and prosection. Clin Anat. 1996;9:57–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patel KM, Moxham BJ. Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clin Anat. 2006;19(2):132–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rizzolo LJ, Stewart WB, O’Brien M, Halms A, Rando W, Abrahams J, Dunne S, Wang S, Aden M. Design principles for developing an efficient clinical anatomy course. Med Teach. 2006;28(2):142–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berube D, Murray C, Schultze K. Cadaver and computer use in the teaching of gross anatomy in physical therapy education. J Phys Therapy Educ. 1999;13(2):41–6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nnodim JO. Learning human anatomy: by dissection or from prosections? Med Educ. 1990;24(4):389–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nnodim JO, Ohanaka EC, Osuji CU. A follow-up comparative study of two modes of learning human anatomy: by dissection and from prosections. Clin Anat. 1996;9(4):258–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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(6):253–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turney BW. Anatomy in the modern curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89(2):104–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson J. Importance of dissection in learning anatomy: personal dissection versus peer teaching. Clin Anat. 2002;15:38–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gogalniceanu P, Hardi M, Paraskevas AP, Darzi A. Anatomy teaching in the 21st century—dead cool or cold dead? Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(3):136–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Granger NA. Dissection laboratory is vital to medical gross anatomy education. Anat Record 2004;281B:6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ. 2004;38(4):418–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parker LM. Anatomical dissection: Why are we cutting it out? Dissection in undergraduate teaching. Aust NZ J Surg. 2002;72(12):910–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pabst R, Rothkotter HJ. Retrospective evaluation of undergraduate medical education by doctors at the end of their residency time in hospitals: consequences for anatomical curriculum. Anat Rec. 1997;249:431–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lempp HK. Perceptions of dissection by students in one medical school: beyond learning about anatomy. A qualitative study. Med Educ. 2005; 39(3):318–25Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McLachlan JC. New path for teaching anatomy: living anatomy and medical imaging vs dissection. Anat Record 2004;281B:2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Carroll RE, Whiten S, Jakson D, Sinclair DW. Assessing the emotional impact of cadaver dissection on medical students. Med Educ. 2002;36:550–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cahill KC, Ettarh RR. Attitudes to anatomy dissection in an Irish medical school. Clin Anat. 2009;22(3):386–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dinsmore CE, Daugherty S, Zeitz HJ. Teaching and learning gross anatomy: dissection, prosection, or both of the above? Clin Anat. 1999;12:111–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michaelsen LK, Watson WE, Cragin JP, Fink LD. Team-based learning: A potential solution to the problems of large classes. Exchange Org Behav Teach J. 1982;7(4):18–33.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michaelsen LK, Knight AB, Fink LD. Team-based learning: a transformative use of small groups. New York: Praeger; 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skidmore JR. The case for prosection: comment on R.L.M. Newell’s paper. Clin Anat. 1995;8:128–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lattore RM, García-Sanz MP, Moreno M, Hernández F, Gil F, López O, Ayala MD, Ramírez G, Vázquez JM, Arencibia A, Henry RW. How useful is plastination in learning anatomy? Vet Med Educ. 2007;34(2):172–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fruhstorfer BH, Palmer J, Brydges S, Abrahams PH. The use of plastinated prosections for teaching anatomy-the view of medical students on the value of this learning resource. Clin Anat. 2011;24(2):246–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McKeown PP, Heylings DJA, Stevenson M, McKelvey KJ, Nixon JR, McCluskey DR. The impact of curricular change on medical students’ knowledge of anatomy. Med Educ. 2003;37(11):954–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Camp CL, Gregory JK, Lachman N, Chen LP, Juskewitch JE, Pawlina W. Comparative efficacy of group and individual feedback in gross anatomy for promoting medical student professionalism. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(2):64–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learn Instr. 1994;4:295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khalil MK, Paas F, Johnson TE, Payer AF. Interactive and dynamic visualizations in teaching and learning anatomy: a cognitive load perspective. Anat Rec. 2005;386B:8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Granger NA, Calleson D. The impact of alternating dissection on student performance in a medical anatomy course: are dissection videos an effective substitute for actual dissection? Clin Anat. 2007;20(3):315–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ganguly PK, Chan LK. Living anatomy in the 21st century: how far can we go? South East Asian J Med Educ. 2008;2(2):52–7.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fakoya FA. Integrating ultrasound technology into teaching gross anatomy: point of order! Med Educ Online. 2013;18:20888.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Swamy M, Searle RF. Anatomy teaching with portable ultrasound to medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:99.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Böckers A, Mayer C, Böckers TM. Does learning in clinical context in anatomical sciences improve examination results, learning motivation, or learning orientation? Anat Sci Educ. 2014; 7(1):3–11.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Holland BK. Modified use of team-based learning for effective delivery of medical gross anatomy and embryology. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1:3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Medical Sciences, Medicine, University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations