Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities

Abstract 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 prese...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Aristeidis Zibis, Vasileios Mitrousias, Sokratis Varitimidis, Vasileios Raoulis, Apostolos Fyllos, Dimitrios Arvanitis
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/b2f03b6abb564f66b680206a7a5cd5eb
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:b2f03b6abb564f66b680206a7a5cd5eb
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:b2f03b6abb564f66b680206a7a5cd5eb2021-12-02T14:01:35ZMusculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities10.1038/s41598-020-80860-72045-2322https://doaj.org/article/b2f03b6abb564f66b680206a7a5cd5eb2021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80860-7https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract 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.Aristeidis ZibisVasileios MitrousiasSokratis VaritimidisVasileios RaoulisApostolos FyllosDimitrios ArvanitisNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-16 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Aristeidis Zibis Vasileios Mitrousias Sokratis Varitimidis Vasileios Raoulis Apostolos Fyllos Dimitrios Arvanitis Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities
description	Abstract 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.
format	article
author	Aristeidis Zibis Vasileios Mitrousias Sokratis Varitimidis Vasileios Raoulis Apostolos Fyllos Dimitrios Arvanitis
author_facet	Aristeidis Zibis Vasileios Mitrousias Sokratis Varitimidis Vasileios Raoulis Apostolos Fyllos Dimitrios Arvanitis
author_sort	Aristeidis Zibis
title	Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities
title_short	Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities
title_full	Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities
title_fullStr	Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities
title_full_unstemmed	Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities
title_sort	musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/b2f03b6abb564f66b680206a7a5cd5eb
work_keys_str_mv	AT aristeidiszibis musculoskeletalanatomyevaluationandcomparisonofcommonteachingandlearningmodalities AT vasileiosmitrousias musculoskeletalanatomyevaluationandcomparisonofcommonteachingandlearningmodalities AT sokratisvaritimidis musculoskeletalanatomyevaluationandcomparisonofcommonteachingandlearningmodalities AT vasileiosraoulis musculoskeletalanatomyevaluationandcomparisonofcommonteachingandlearningmodalities AT apostolosfyllos musculoskeletalanatomyevaluationandcomparisonofcommonteachingandlearningmodalities AT dimitriosarvanitis musculoskeletalanatomyevaluationandcomparisonofcommonteachingandlearningmodalities
_version_	1718392162740076544

Musculoskeletal anatomy: evaluation and comparison of common teaching and learning modalities

Ejemplares similares