https://www.ijmhr.org/ijar.htm editor_anatomy@ijmhr.org
ISSN:       2321-4281 (E) 2321-8967 (P)

IJAR.2020.148

DOWNLOAD PDF
Table of Contents

Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 8; Issue 2.2 (May 2020)

Page No.: 7513-7518

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2020.148

STUDENT’S PERCEPTION ABOUT INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY DURING DISSECTION HALL TIME- A QUESTIONNAIRE BASED STUDY

Munawara R 1, Palak *2, Kapoor K 3.

1 Post graduate Junior resident, Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.

*2 Demonstrator, Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.

3 Professor and Head, Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.

Address for correspondence: Palak, Demonstrator, Department of Anatomy, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India. Contact no: 9876233767 E-Mail: palakchhabra48 @gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Introduction: A first year medical student spends around 600 hours in anatomy. Time tested cadaveric dissection is considered as the heart of anatomy learning by young students as well as eminent medical professionals. The reason for the introduction of other sources being constrained time schedule with growing internet generation which forces the anatomy faculty to blend in to make the subject interesting.

Aims and Objectives: The aim of the study was to quantify student’s perception on the cadaveric teaching and their view on integration of other tools in dissection hall, also assessing different ways to increase their productivity in dissection hall time.

Material and methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was conducted in the Department Of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Chandigarh, India on 27 and 28th of May 2019. A predesigned 11 item questionnaire was circulated to 101 outgoing first-year MBBS students out of which 93 students participated.

Results and conclusion: Majority of the students(90%) feel that there cannot be any replacement for actual cadaveric dissection. the maximum students (84%) preferred you tube videos as compared to mobile applications (6%) thereby stating that these apps do not aid much in their learning.

Key words: Digital sources, Cadaveric teaching, Dissection Hall.

REFERENCES

  1. Haider G, Rashid S, Hussain A, Ghazanfar M, Ghazanfar A, Javaid A. Cadaveric Dissection a Thing of Past? The insight of Consultants, Fellows, and Residents. Cureus.2018; 10(4): e2418.
  2. Houser JJ ,Kondrashov P. Gross Anatomy Education Today: The Integration of traditional and Innovative Methologies. J Mo Med.2018;115(1).
  3. Barry DS, Marzouk F, Chulak-Oglu K, Bennett D, O’Keeffe GW. Anatomy Education for the Youtube Generation. Anat Sci Edu.2016; 9(1):90-6.
  4. Niccoli A. Paper or Tablet? Reading Recall and Comprehension. Creative Commons.2015.
  5. Singh V, Kharb P. A Paradigm shift from teaching to learning gross anatomy: meta- analysis of implications for instructional methods. J Anat Soc India.2013;62:84-9.
  6. Newell F, Bulthoff HH, Ernst MO, Oakley I. Cross-modal perception of actively explored objects. In H. S. Oakley S. O’Modhrain,editor(s). Proceedings EuroHaptics 2003. Dublin, Ireland: Trinity College Dublin. P 291-299.
  7. Vertematil M, Rizzetto F, Vezzulli F, Sampogna G, Cassin S, Cenzato F, et al Teaching Anatomy in a modern medical course: an integrated approach at Vialba Medical School in Milan. MedEd Publish.2018; 7(1):15.
  8. Kolachalama VB, Garg PS. Machine learning and medical education. Npj Digital Medicine.2018;1:54.
  9. Azer SA, Azer S. 3D Anatomy Models and impact on Learning: A review of the Quality of the Literature. HealProf Edu.2016; 2(2):80-98.
  10. Park S, Kim Y, Park S, Shin J.A. The Impacts of three-dimensional anatomical atlas on learning anatomy. Anat Cell Biol. 2019;52(1): 76-81.
  11. Weyhe D, Verena U, Weyhe F, Kaluschke M, Zachmann G. Immersive Anatomy Atlas- Empirical Study investigating the Usability of a Virtual Reality Environment as a learning tool for Anatomy. Front Surg.2018; 5: 73.
  12. Willis J. The Neuroscience of Joyful Education. J Dep Sup Curr Dev.2007;64
  13. Shaffer K. Teaching Anatomy in the digital world. N Engl J Med.2004; 351(13):1279-81.
  14. Vale RD. The Value of asking Questions. J Mol Bio Cell.2013; 24(6): 680-2.
  15. Benware CA, Deci EL. Quality of Learning With an Active Versus Passive Motivational Set. Am Educ Res J. 1984; 21(4): 755-65.
  16. Nestojko JF, Bui DC, Kornell N, Bjork EL. Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Mem Cognit. 2014 Oct;42(7):1038-48.
  17. Pozen RC, Downey K. What makes some people more productive than others. Harv. Bus. Rev.2019.
  18. Shin MH, Kim KH. Teacher, student, content connections that influence student subject interest. Green and smart technology with sensor applications/CCIS.2012;338: 209-17.
  19. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Ann. Anat; 208:151-7.
  20. Mitrousias V, Karachalios TS, Varitimidis SE, Natsis K, Arvanitis DL, Zibis AH. Anatomy learning from Prosected Cdaveric Specimens Versus Plastic Models: A comparative study of Upper Limb Anatomy. Ana Sci Educ.2019;
  21. Shaffer K. Teaching Anatomy in the digital world. N Engl J Med.2004; 351(13):1279-81.
  22. Johnson EO, Charchanti AV, Troupis Modernization of an anatomy class: From conceptualization to implementation. A case for integrated multimodal-multidisciplinary teaching. Anat Sci Edu; 5: 354-66.
  23. Kucuk S, Kapakin S, Goktas Y. Learning Anatomy via mobile augmented reality:Effects on achievement and cognitive load. Anat Sci Edu.2016;9: 411-21.
  24. Zehry K, Halder N, Theodosiou. E- Learning in medical education in the united kingdom. Procedia socBehav Sci.2011; 15:3163-7.
  25. Dhir S.K, Verma D, Batta M, Mishra D. E-Learning in medical education in India. J Ind Ped.2017; 54: 871-7.
  26. Pillay S. Your brain can only take so much focus. Harv. Bus. Rev..2017.
  27. Papa V, Vaccarezza Teaching Anatomy in the XXI Century: New Aspects and pitfalls. Sci World J.2013;2013.
  28. Cornish, David, Dianne. The Essential 20:Twenty Components of an Excellent Health Care Team. Pittsburgh, PA; RoseDog Books.2009:72-73.
  29. Mangen A, Walgermo BR, Bronnick K. Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. Int J Edu Res.2013;58: 61-8.
  30. Ackerman R, Goldsmith M. Metacognitive Regulation of text learning: on screen versus paper. J Exp Psychol Appl.2011; 17(1):18-32.
  31. McPheat S. The Advantages And Disadvantages of mobile learning. Skillshub.https://www.skillshub.com/advantages-disadvantages-mobile-learning/
  32. Holland JC, Pawlikowska T. Undergraduate Medical Students’ Usage and Perceptions of Anatomical Case-Based Learning: Comparison of Facilitated Small Group Discussions and eLearning Resources. Anat Sci Edu.2019; 12: 245-56.
  33. Harrison CH, Elmansouri A, Parton W, Myers MA, Hall S, Jonny R, et al. The Efficacy of Frontline Near-Peer Teaching in a Modern Medical Curriculum.Anat Sci Edu.2018; 12: 236-44.
  34. Schaefer AH, Wilson AB, Barger JB, Azim HM, Brokaw JJ, Brooks WS. What does a Modern Anatomist Look Like? Current Trends in the Training of Anatomy Educators. Anat Sci Edu. 2019; 12: 225-35.
  35. Oakes DJ, Hegedus EM, Ollerenshaw SL, Drury H, Ritchie HE. Using the jigsaw Method to teach Abdominal Anatomy. Anat Sci Edu. 2019;12: 272-83.
  36. Pickering JD, Swinnerton BJ. Exploring the Dimensions of Medical student engagement with Technology- Enhanced Learning Resources and Assessing the Impact on Assessment Outcomes. Anat Sci Edu. 2019;12: 117-28.

Cite this article: Munawara R, Palak, Kapoor K. STUDENT’S PERCEPTION ABOUT INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY DURING DISSECTION HALL TIME- A QUESTIONNAIRE BASED STUDY. Int J Anat Res 2020;8(2.2):7513-7518. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2020.148