Assessing Anatomy as a Basic Medical Science
Human Anatomy is the foundation for professional training in medicine and related paramedical sciences such as dentistry, nursing, biomedical engineering. However the subject is very complex and teaching students to understand and appreciate it encompasses many learning modalities as well as cognition. The traditional learning method of anatomy has been rote memorization of factual core knowledge without deep understanding and thereby the students find it difficult to recall anatomical knowledge needed for interpretation of clinical scenarios.
In order to improve the situation and encourage in-depth learning, good assessment methods are needed. These methods should also assess application of knowledge, cognitive skills, communication skills and professionalism. To achieve this, the assessment process has to be defined in relation to the subject.
The best practices of anatomy assessment are described based on the five stages in the development of this process. Also the utility index of assessment systems and the components are described in detail, such as validity, reliability, educational impact, acceptability, cost, etc.
The chapter also examines the various modes of assessing anatomical knowledge and thereby the tools that could be used to determine whether the students have gained a deep understanding of anatomical knowledge which has been outlined in the learning outcomes and are able to utilize it in later years for clinical reasoning.
KeywordsSummative Assessment Future Practice Health Professional Education Assessment Blueprint Rote Memorization
- 1.Association of American Medical Colleges-Howard Hughes Medical Institute Committee. 2009. Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians. Report of the AAMC-HHMI Committee. https://www.aamc.org/download/271072/data/scientificfoundationsforfuturephysicians.pdf
- 2.Myers C, Jones TB. Promoting active learning: strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993.Google Scholar
- 7.Boud D. Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary? In: Knight P, editor. Assessment for learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page; 1995.Google Scholar
- 8.Biggs J. Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. SRHE and Open University Press imprint; 1999. Google Scholar
- 9.Ramsden P. Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge Falmer; 1992.Google Scholar
- 10.Brown SA, Knight P. Assessing learners in higher education. London: Kogan Page; 1994.Google Scholar
- 11.Bloom BS, Englehart MB, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals – handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: McKay; 1956.Google Scholar
- 14.Moskal BM, Leydens JA. Scoring rubric development: validity and reliability. Pract Assess Res Evaluat. 2000; 7(10).Google Scholar
- 15.Paul E, Elder L. Consequential validity: using assessment to drive instruction. 2007. http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/White%20PaperAssessmentSept2007.pdf
- 16.Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, Havelock P. The consultation: an approach to learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
- 19.Case SM, Swanson DB. Constructing written test questions for basic and clinical sciences. 3 ed. NBME; 2002.Google Scholar
- 24.Ebel RL. Essentials of educational measurement. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. 1979.Google Scholar
- 25.Angoff WH. Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In: Thorndike RL, editor. Educational measurement. 2 ed. Washington DC: American Council on Education; 1971.Google Scholar
- 26.Nedelsky L. Absolute grading standards for objective tests. Educ Psychol Measur. 1954;14:3–19.Google Scholar