|
|||||
|
|
Differences Between Attached and Detached Cadaveric Prosections on Students' Identification Ability During Practical Examinations |
|
| Authors: | Spencer Mattingly Elizabeth Hardesty Kevin Chovanec Marlon E Cobos Jacqueline Garcia Meghan Grizzle Amanda Huerta Jesse Ohtake Daniel Romero-Alvarez Victor H Gonzalez |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas
Contribution: Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Writing - original draft (lead), Writing - review & editing (lead);2. Department of Clinical, Health and Applied Sciences, College of Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston, Texas Contribution: Data curation (equal), Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal);3. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas Contribution: Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal);4. Veteran Affairs Eastern Kansas Health Care System, Topeka, Kansas Contribution: Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal);5. Department of Geospatial Information System Technology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming Contribution: Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal);6. School of Nursing, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas Contribution: Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal);7. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, School of Health Professions, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas Contribution: Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal);8. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas |
| Abstract: | Cadaveric prosections are effective learning tools in anatomy education. They range from a fully dissected, sometimes plastinated, complete cadaver (in situ prosections), to a single, carefully dissected structure detached from a cadaver (ex situ prosections). While most research has focused on the advantages and disadvantages of dissection versus prosection, limited information is available on the instructional efficacy of different prosection types. This contribution explored potential differences between in situ and ex situ prosections regarding the ability of undergraduate students to identify anatomical structures. To determine if students were able to recognize the same anatomical structure on both in situ and ex situ prosections, or on either one individually, six structures were tagged on both prosection types as part of three course summative examinations. The majority of students (61%–68%) fell into one of the two categories: those that recognized or failed to recognize the same structure on both in situ and ex situ prosections. The percentage of students who recognized a selected structure on only one type of prosection was small (1.6%–31.6%), but skewed in favor of ex situ prosections (P ≤ 0.01). These results suggest that overall students' identification ability was due to knowledge differences, not the spatial or contextual challenges posed by each type of prosection. They also suggest that the relative difficulty of either prosection type depends on the nature of the anatomical structure. Thus, one type of prosection might be more appropriate for teaching some structures, and therefore the use of both types is recommended. |
| Keywords: | gross anatomy education undergraduate education cadaver dissection cadaver prosections learning |