Impact of Dissection Versus Prosection on Student Anatomical Knowledge Retention
Authors: Lackey‐Cornelison Wendy , Bauler Laura 
Published: June 2021

Few topics invoke as much passion in anatomy education as the role of dissection in laboratory instruction. In 2004, The Anatomical Record (Part B: New Anatomist) published their oft‐cited debate forum on the necessity of dissection. Subsequent studies comparing dissection to other methods have noted extensive variability between educational programs and student populations making comparisons problematic. In 2017, WMed underwent a rapid transition from dissection to prosection‐based musculoskeletal instruction. This change provided a unique opportunity to compare the impact of each instructional method on anatomical knowledge retention as measured by summative and practical examination.

At WMed, students completed a reciprocal peer‐teaching (RPT) module during the musculoskeletal system course between 2015 and 2017. The RPT module assigned a regional content area (back, shoulder/arm, forearm/hand, hip/thigh, and leg/foot) to anatomy teams of 5–6 students. Students learned regional content and then assisted their peers in learning this content. The first two classes (n=112) learned content via traditional dissection, while the third class (n= 72) learned their regional content on prosected specimens. Students had five sessions (13 hours) prior to the start of the course to learn the content and for the dissection cohorts to prepare their specimen. All cohorts completed a pre‐course quiz to ensure readiness to peer‐teach. Anatomy content, instructional time, and class metrics remained relatively constant between cohorts, with the exception of a single optional procedure component offered in 2017. Due to annual differences in exams and performance of students, scores for region specific exam questions were normalized to scores on the overall exam. Data was analyzed using an independent T‐test.

Students in the prosection and dissection cohorts passed their region‐specific quiz at equal rates (p = 0.11). Student knowledge on practical or summative exam content related to regions they taught was not significantly different between prosection and dissection cohorts (p = 0.62 and p = 0.38, respectively). To further examine if there were differences between dissection and prosection cohorts, we examined student knowledge acquisition in each of the five regions individually. There were no statistically significant differences in knowledge on either the practical or summative exam questions relating to a specific region when compared to performance on the overall exam. This data suggests that student acquisition of knowledge was comparable regardless of learning method, prosection or dissection.

An advantage of this study is the stability of variables between cohorts. Student groups taught the same objectives, course sequencing and content remained consistent between years, and students were tested in the same manner (written exam with multiple choice questions and laboratory practical). This analysis supports previous studies that conclude there are no disparities in the effectiveness of dissection or prosection. The greatest advantage of this study is the direct comparison of the effectiveness of prosection or dissection in anatomical knowledge retention while minimizing the confounding variables that complicate other studies.

This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.