IJAR.2026.144
Type of Article: Original Research
Volume 14; Issue 2 (June 2026)
Page No.: 9532-9538
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2026.144
Improved Student Performance and Satisfaction after Implementing A Retrieval Practice Strategy in Anatomy Practical
Cheryl Melovitz-Vasan 1, Susan Huff 2, Matthew Gentile 3, Nagaswami Vasan *1.
1 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
2 Medical Education Research Collaborator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27104, USA.
3 Office of Medical Education, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
*1 Emeritus Professor, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
Corresponding Author: Dr. Nagaswami Vasan, Emeritus Professor of Anatomy, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, 401 South Broadway, Camden, New Jersey 08103, USA. Phone: 1-856-361-2889 E-Mail: vasandvmphd@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Reduction of curricular hours in integrated, organ system-based preclinical education resulted in fewer hours for cadaveric dissection, making learning from dissection challenging. Though students performed satisfactorily on written examinations, cadaver-based practical examination performance fell below an acceptable level. In these examinations, students successfully identified tagged structures on cadavers they dissected, but could not identify structures on other cadavers. Anatomists hypothesized that practical examination performance would improve if students as a group answered questions by using retrieval practice to review structures in all cadavers used for the examination.
Improving student recognition of structures across all cadavers presented an opportunity to change instructional practice. Anatomists developed and implemented a laboratory review based on the strategy of ‘retrieval practice’ (RP). The students rotated in teams through all dissected cadavers, identified several structures from a list provided at each cadaver, and answered questions about those structures. They engaged in peer-to-peer teaching that led to a deeper understanding of the content and outcome of RP.
Failures in the anatomy practical decreased after the implementation of this strategy, and scores improved significantly (pre-RP mean (SD) = 77.5 (12.4), post-RP mean (SD) = 85.9 (5.72). In addition, students evaluated RP highly. Two themes stood out: students appreciated the “ability to see all the cadavers used in the practical examination and answer higher-order questions” and that RP “allowed peer teaching, trust, and collegiality,” allowing students to ask simple questions for better understanding without judgment.
Formative RP feedback allowed students to address knowledge deficits before practical examinations. A surface approach to learning anatomy resulted in lower achievement levels; a strategic approach resulted in higher attainment levels, and the RP provided this strategic approach.
Keywords: Anatomy testing, Laboratory review, retrieval practice, Improved performance, student satisfaction, medical education.
REFERENCES
[1]. Harden RM. Approaches to curriculum planning. Med Educ 1986;20:458-466.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01193.x
PMid:3531778
[2]. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: The winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ 2009;2:253-259.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.117
PMid:19890982
[3]. Fitzgerald JEF, White MJ, Tang SW, Maxwell-Armstrong CA, James DK. Are we teaching sufficient anatomy at medical school? The opinions of newly qualified doctors. Clin Anat 2008;21:718-724.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20662
PMid:18773486
[4]. Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM. An evaluation of problem-based learning in small groups utilizing a simulated patient. J Med Educ 1976;51: 52-54.
[5]. Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P, Purkis J, Clay D. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME guide number 23. Med Teach 2012;34:e421-e444.
https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939
PMid:22578051 PMCid:PMC13097326
[6]. Melovitz-Vasan C, Gentile M, Huff S, Vasan N. Student Perception of Active Learning Group in a Problem-Based Learning Curricular Environment. Med Sci Educ 2018;28:195-201.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-0541-6
[7]. Yaqinuddin A, Zafar M, Ikram MF, Ganguly P. What is an objective structured practical examination in anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 2013;6:125-133.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1305
PMid:22930456
[8]. Bradley P, Mattick K. Integration of basic and clinical sciences-AMEE 2008. http://www.amee.org/getattachment/Conferences/AMEE-Past-Conferences/AMEE-Conference-2008/Introduction-to-Medical-Education-Bradley-Mattick.pdf. Dundee, U.K. [accessed 3 November 2022].
[9]. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company, 1956.
[10]. National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) United States Medical Licensing Examination® USMLE® Step 1 Sample Test Questions. https://www.usmle.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Step_1_Sample_Items.pdf. Philadelphia, PA. [accessed 3 November 2022].
[11]. Rockarts J, Brewer‐Deluce D, Shali A, Mohialdin V, Wainman B. National survey on Canadian undergraduate medical programs: The decline of the anatomical sciences in Canadian medical education. Anat Sci Educ 2020;13:381-389.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1960
PMid:32174032
[12]. Salinas-Álvarez Y, Quiroga-Garza A, Martínez-Garza JH, Jacobo-Baca G, Zárate-Garza PP, Rodríguez-Alanís KV, Guzmán-López S, Elizondo-Omaña RE. Mexican educators’ survey on anatomical sciences education and a review of world tendencies. Anat Sci Educ 2021;14:471-481.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2017
PMid:32902143
[13]. Smith CF, Freeman SK, Heylings D, Finn GM, Davies DC. Anatomy education for medical students in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in 2019: A 20-year follow-up. Anat Sci Educ 2022;15:993-1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2126
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2126
PMid:34314569 PMCid:PMC9786311
[14]. Hofer RE, Nikolaus OB, Pawlina W. Using checklists in a gross anatomy laboratory improves learning outcomes and dissection quality. Anat Sci Educ 2011;4:249-255.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.243
PMid:21786427
[15]. Rao Bhagavathula V, Bhagavathula V, Moinis RS, Chaudhuri JD. The integration of prelaboratory assignments within neuroanatomy augment academic performance, increase engagement, and enhance intrinsic motivation in students. Anat Sci Educ 2022;15:576-586.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2084
PMid:33829667
[16]. Smith CF, McManus B. The integrated anatomy practical paper: A robust assessment method for anatomy education today. Anat Sci Educ 2015;8:63-73.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1454
PMid:24706567
[17]. Kooloos JGM, Bergman EM, Scheffers MAGP, Schepens-Franke AN, Vorstenbosch MATM. The effect of passive and active education methods applied in repetition activities on the retention of anatomical knowledge. Anat Sci Educ 2020;13:458-466.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1924
PMid:31610096 PMCid:PMC7383800
[18]. Minhas PS, Ghosh A, Swanzy L. The effects of passive and active learning on student preference and performance in an undergraduate basic science course. Anat Sci Educ 2012;5:200-207.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1274
PMid:22434661
[19]. Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull 1965;63:384-399.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
PMid:14314073 PMCid:PMC12088243
[20]. Chen LP, Gregory JK, Camp CL, Juskewitch JE, Pawlina W, Lachman N. Learning to lead: Self- and peer evaluation of team leaders in the human structure didactic block. Anat Sci Educ 2009;2:210-217.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.101
PMid:19693955
[21]. Rowland S, Ahmed K, Davies DC, Ashrafian H, Patel V, Darzi A, Paraskeva PA, Athanasiou T. Assessment of anatomical knowledge for clinical practice: Perceptions of clinicians and students. Surg Radiol Anat 2011;33:263-269.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-010-0748-8
PMid:21113711
[22]. Smith CF, Martinez-Álvarez C, McHanwell S. The context of learning anatomy: Does it make a difference? J Anat 2014; 224: 270-278.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12089
PMid:23930933 PMCid:PMC3931538
