Teaching Anatomy to Students in a Physical Therapy Education Program

  • James W. YoudasEmail author
  • David A. Krause
  • Nathan J. Hellyer


Gross anatomy is formally taught to physical therapy students emphasizing the musculoskeletal anatomy of the axial and appendicular skeletons including bones and muscles along side peripheral nerves and vessels. In addition, anatomy of the heart and lungs is also presented. The primary educational objective is to provide the physical therapy student with a broad understanding of functional anatomy so he or she can examine the musculoskeletal system and identify structures responsible for movement dysfunction. In Mayo School of Health Sciences’ Physical Therapy Doctoral Program, anatomy learning activities involve: (1) reciprocal peer teaching; (2) near-peer teaching; (3) using an audience response system (ARS); (4) performing clinical tests on human cadavers; (5) painting and drawing anatomical relationships; and (6) interprofessional education.


Anterior Cruciate Ligament Student Teacher Anatomical Relationship Anterior Drawer Interprofessional Education 
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.


  1. 1.
    Mattingly GE, Barnes CE. Teaching human anatomy in physical therapy education in the United States: a survey. Phys Ther. 1994;74:720–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomas KJ, Denham BE, Dinolfo JD. Perceptions among occupational and physical therapy students of a nontraditional methodology for teaching laboratory gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:71–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    APTA. American Physical Therapy Association. Commission on accreditation in physical therapy education (CAPTE). Evaluative criteria for PT programs. 2013.
  4. 4.
    Wright SJ. Student perceptions of an upper-level undergraduate human laboratory course without cadavers. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5:146–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roberts DH, Newman LR, Schwartzstein RM. Twelve tips for facilitating Millennials’ teaching. Med Teach. 2012;34:274–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen AR, Boraks N. Peer tutoring: putting it to the test. Read Teach. 1978;32:274–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Youdas JW, Krause DA, Hellyer NJ, Hollman JH, Rindflesch AB. Perceived usefulness of reciprocal peer teaching among doctor of physical therapy students in the gross anatomy laboratory. J Phys Ther Educ. 2007;21:31–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krych AJ, March CN, Bryan RE, Peake BJ, Pawlina W, Carmichael SW. Reciprocal peer teaching: students teaching students in the gross anatomy laboratory. Clin Anat. 2005;18:296–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bentley BS, Hill RV. Objective and subjective assessments of reciprocal peer teaching in medical gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:143–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the musculoskeletal system. Foundations for rehabilitation. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2010. p. 490. Chapter 12, Hip.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Durán CEP, Bahena EN, Rodríguez MG, Baca GJ, Uresti AS, Elizondo-Omaňa E, Guzmán-López S. Neer-peer teaching in an anatomy course with a low faculty-to-student ratio. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5:171–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Copeland HL, Longworth DL, Hewson MG, Stroller JK. Succesful lecturing: a prospective study to validate attributes of the effective medical lecture. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:366–71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nasmith L, Steinert Y. The evaluation of a workshop to promote interactive learning. Teach Learn Med. 2001;13:43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schakow TE, Chavez M, Loya L, Friedman M. Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med. 2004;36:494–504.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Streeter JL, Rybicki FJ. Education techniques for lifelong learning. A novel standard-compliant audience response system for medical education. Radiographics. 2006;26:1243–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alexander CJ, Crescini WM, Juskewitch JE, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:160–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Collins J. Audience response systems: technology to engage learners. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008;5:993–1000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wait KR, Cloud BA, Forster LA, Jones TM, Nokleby JJ, Wolfe CR, Youdas JW. Use of an audience response system during peer teaching among physical therapy students in gross anatomy: perceptions of peer teachers and students. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:286–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith CF, Mathias HS. What impact does anatomy education have on clinical practice? Clin Anat. 2011;24:113–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McMenamin PG. Body painting as a tool in clinical anatomy teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1:139–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skinder-Meredith AE. Innovative activities for teaching anatomy of speech production. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:234–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hamilton SS, Yuan BJ, Lachman N, Hellyer NJ, Krause DA, Hollman JH, Youdas JW, Pawlina W. Interprofessional education in gross anatomy: experience with first-year medical and physical therapy students at Mayo Clinic. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1:258–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mitchell BS, McCrorie P, Sedgwick P. Student attitudes towards anatomy teaching and learning in a multiprofessional context. Med Educ. 2004;38:737–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • James W. Youdas
    • 1
    Email author
  • David A. Krause
    • 1
  • Nathan J. Hellyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Program in Physical TherapyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations