Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, Panepistimion 3st Biopolis, 41110, Larissa, Greece.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, 41110, Larissa, Greece.
Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 15;11(1):1517. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-80860-7.
Anatomy teaching has traditionally been based on dissection. However, alternative teaching modalities constantly emerge, the use of which along with a decrease in teaching hours has brought the anatomy knowledge of students and young doctors into question. In this way, the goal of the present study is to a. compare the efficacy of the most common teaching modalities and b. investigate students' perceptions on each modality. In total, 313 medical students were taught gross anatomy of the upper limb, using four different learning modalities: dissection (n = 80), prosections (n = 77), plastic models (n = 84) and 3D anatomy software (n = 72). Students' knowledge was examined by 100 multiple-choice and tag questions followed by an evaluation questionnaire. Regarding performance, the dissection and the 3D group outperformed the prosection and the plastic models group in total and multiple-choice questions. The performance of the 3D group in tag questions was also statistically significantly higher compared to the other three groups. In the evaluation questionnaire, dissection outperformed the rest three modalities in questions assessing students' satisfaction, but also fear or stress before the laboratory. Moreover, dissection and 3D software were considered more useful when preparing for clinical activities. In conclusion, dissection remains first in students' preferences and achieves higher knowledge acquisition. Contemporary, 3D anatomy software are considered equally important when preparing for clinical activities and mainly favor spatial knowledge acquisition. Prosections could be a valuable alternative when dissection is unavailable due to limited time or shortage of cadavers. Plastic models are less effective in knowledge acquisition but could be valuable when preparing for cadaveric laboratories. In conclusion, the targeted use of each learning modality is essential for a modern medical curriculum.
解剖教学传统上基于解剖。然而,不断出现替代教学模式,这些模式的使用以及教学时间的减少,使得学生和年轻医生的解剖知识受到质疑。因此,本研究的目的是:a. 比较最常见的教学模式的效果;b. 调查学生对每种模式的看法。共有 313 名医学生接受了上肢大体解剖的教学,使用了四种不同的学习模式:解剖(n=80)、切片(n=77)、塑料模型(n=84)和 3D 解剖软件(n=72)。学生的知识通过 100 道多项选择题和标记题进行检查,然后是一份评估问卷。关于表现,在总得分和多项选择题中,解剖组和 3D 组的表现优于切片组和塑料模型组。3D 组在标记题中的表现也明显高于其他三组。在评估问卷中,解剖在评估学生满意度的问题上优于其他三种模式,但在实验室前也会引起恐惧或压力。此外,解剖和 3D 软件在为临床活动做准备时被认为更有用。总之,解剖仍然是学生的首选,并且获得了更高的知识获取。同时,3D 解剖软件在为临床活动做准备时被认为同样重要,主要有利于空间知识的获取。当由于时间有限或尸体短缺而无法进行解剖时,切片可以作为一种有价值的替代方法。塑料模型在知识获取方面效果较差,但在准备尸体实验室时可能很有价值。总之,有针对性地使用每种学习模式对于现代医学课程至关重要。