The Use of Softchalk Modules to Prepare First Year Medical Students for Upper Limb Cadaver Dissections
Authors: Tooley Trevor Richard , Ahmed Mohammad , Helland Leif , Dykowski Sara , Barremkala Malli 
Published: November 2023

INTRODUCTION

Anatomical science is a staple of medical school education and, in many programs, the first foundational training students receive. At OUWB School of Medicine, students learn anatomy from two main components: didactic lectures and cadaver dissection. The lectures focus on function and clinical correlates, while the dissections enable students to learn anatomy in‐situ. While cadavers are considered the gold standard for anatomical sciences, a multi‐modal approach to learning is becoming the norm. Many schools use computer‐based‐learning, virtual dissectors, and models in addition to or instead of traditional dissection. While these resources are useful, they are inefficient and often misaligned with specific course content. This project is designed to create a series of Softchalk modules that align with course content and enhance the laboratory learning experience.

METHODS

First year medical students (n=126) in the Anatomical Foundations of Clinical Practice 1 course were selected for the study. Online modules were designed using Softchalk software. Each module expanded upon information in the students' cadaver dissector guide and integrated key elements from lectures. Each module used images, descriptive text, and interactive activities to help students better prepare for gross dissection. Students received modules for 2 of 4 upper limb dissections. For weeks without a module (2), students followed their normal routines. Following the unit, a survey was sent out to assess the perceptions of the optional Softchalk modules. Likert scale questions (19 questions, scored 0–100, strongly disagree‐strongly agree) were used to evaluate the amount of time spent on the module, usefulness, and comparison to the gross dissector guide.

RESULTS

A total of 43 surveys (34%) have been recorded. All participants were first year students, average age 23±1.4 years old. The majority were Caucasian (61%), female (65%), with no anatomy background (56%). For initial analysis we focused on questions testing time‐to‐completion and feelings of preparedness for gross dissection. Spearman correlations found no relationship between average time spent in minutes (31.2±15) and a question asking if the modules took an “appropriate amount of time” (avg. score=72/100). There was a weak correlation (R=0.43) between two questions testing feelings of preparedness and using modules for all dissections. A t‐test comparing the use of 1 module versus 2 modules found no significant change in any question response. When asked if modules increased understanding of the course content, respondents agreed (avg. score=79/100). While the data is premature, these modules could benefit medical student gross dissection learning.

CONCLUSION

While data analysis is ongoing (December 2016), initial results indicate that the Softchalk modules were a positive experience for first year students and was helpful with dissection preparation. It was not perceived as a significant time burden by students. This pilot study shows opportunity for future, quantitative studies (impact vs. perception) as well as studies with modules for more than just the upper limb unit.

Table 1 shows questions from the post‐module survey (used to assess the learning modules) and the subsequent average question scores with Standard Deviations (SD). The scoring for all questions ranged from 0–100, which correlated to Likert ratings: Strongly Disagree ‐Somewhat Disagree ‐ Neither Agree nor Disagree ‐ Somewhat Agree ‐ Strongly Agree. This data represents results from 43 first‐year medical students who completed either one or both learning modules.

Questions Pertaining to Assessment of the Softchalk Modules

Survey Questions
Mean Score
SD

Q11 ‐ The learning modules(s) helped me prepare for cadaver dissection.
71.36
18.09

Q12 ‐ The learning module(s), allowed me to feel I had a better idea of what to expect during the upcoming dissection.
66.34
26.64

Q13 ‐ The learning module(s) confused me more than it helped me.
22.68
21.1

Q14 ‐ The learning module(s) took an appropriate amount of time to complete.
66.15
26.47

Q15 ‐ After completing the learning module(s), I DID NOT feel more prepared for the cadaver dissection.
22.7
23.15

Q16 ‐ The learning module(s) navigation was easy to use, clear, and simple.
67.43
30.04

Q17 ‐The learning module(s) helped me MORE THAN reviewing the Thieme Dissector alone.
65.82
28.28

Q18 ‐ I wish I had an online learning module(s) to prepare me fur ALL the cadaver
79.56
17.36

Q19 ‐The learning module(s) helped me better understand specific aspects of the upper
73.38
19.66

Q21 ‐ I felt that I DID NOT have enough time to complete the learning module(s) before the dissection.
54.73
26.67