30. Undergraduates Studying Cadaveric Prosections in Class Exhibited More Effective Learning of Fundamental Gross Anatomy Than Those Performing Cadaveric Dissections.

Abstract

Background: Learning anatomical structures and concepts by dissecting cadavers is a staple in a laboratory classroom. Student-led dissections offer hands-on learning opportunities but require substantial class time and supplies. Prosections are cadaveric displays prepared by experts before class. These reduce costs, resources, and class time but are generally considered less hands-on. The comparative benefits of each instructional methodology on student knowledge retention and perception are an emerging andragogical topic. Objective: This study sought to investigate the effectiveness of using cadaveric prosections or dissections in a sophomore-level undergraduate anatomy course on student performance, knowledge retention, and perception. Methods: Two cohorts of undergraduate students enrolled in Animal Science 243–Fundamental Animal Anatomy at the University of Nebraska completed weekly course units that included either cadaveric prosection (n = 18) or dissection (n = 18) of fetal pigs to teach a specific anatomical topic. To assess learning, students individually completed a practical quiz for each anatomical unit with questions at Bloom’s taxonomy levels 1–3. To assess knowledge retention, students additionally completed midterm and final exams that contained practical and conceptual questions. The first half of the semester included muscular, digestive, and respiratory units. The second half included cardiovascular, renal, and nervous units. To assess perception, students completed anonymous weekly surveys and an end-of-semester survey that utilized Likert Scale and open-ended questions. Results: Practical quiz grades did not differ between methods for most units. For the nervous system quiz, however, prosection students (99.4±2.2%) scored almost a letter grade better (P < 0.01) than dissection students (91.3±4.8%). For the muscle system, which was perceived as the most challenging unit, prosection students scored almost a letter grade better (P < 0.01) on mid-term practical questions (90.1±4.0% vs 82.3±4.6%) and more than a letter grade better (P < 0.01) on the final exam (72.3±5.8% vs 59.6±5.9%) than dissection students. Scores on midterm and final practical questions did not differ between methods for other units. However, final exam scores for all (practical+conceptual) questions over digestive and nervous systems were improved (P < 0.01) for prosection students. Likewise, midterm scores for all questions over the muscle system tended to be better (P < 0.10) for prosection students. Students self-selecting hands-on roles (dissector/manipulator, assistant) with the cadaver scored higher (P < 0.01) than those selecting hands-off roles (observer, non-participant) for respiratory and renal final exam questions but scored lower (P < 0.05) on cardiovascular and muscular final exam questions. Conclusion: These results indicate that using cadaveric prosections for teaching gross anatomy is as effective or more effective than traditional cadaveric dissections. Although students indicated favoring hands-on experiences, scores were not always improved for those in the interactive roles. Together, these findings show that students learned and retained knowledge from both teaching modalities, but cadaveric prosections led to better learning outcomes for several topics.