Virtual Dissector Technology Implementation in an Undergraduate Anatomy Lab – Fun and Fresh or Stuck in the Corner
Authors: Dunham Stacey M. , Husmann Polly R. 
Published: April 2020

Background

Computer‐aided instruction is becoming increasingly popular in anatomy education and previous research has demonstrated some positive impacts when supplementing traditional teaching methods (Wilson et al., 2018). Our mixed methods analysis sought to determine student perceptions and outcomes related to supplementing traditional pedagogical methods in an undergraduate anatomy lab with the VH Dissector (VHD) Software on a large touch screen terminal.

Experimental Design

The software and touch screen terminal were added to the curriculum of our large undergraduate anatomy lab during the Fall semester of 2018 and Spring semester of 2019. Ten VHD lesson modules were implemented throughout the semester with a cross‐over, longitudinal study design (i.e., each student completed half of the modules and served as the control for the other half). All students had the same amount of time to study anatomy content on plastic models and two prosected cadavers. In addition, students in the experimental group completed a 10‐minute module using the VHD software on the large screen terminal that reinforced the topics. Students took a pre‐quiz prior to covering a topic, and then a post‐quiz following the sessions covering that topic. The mean difference between pre‐quiz and post‐quiz scores was calculated. Independent Samples t‐tests compared the mean difference between intervention and control groups. Post‐course surveys were also obtained to examine students’ perceptions of the usability and efficacy of the technology using open‐ended and Likert scale questions. Frequencies and Spearman’s Rho correlations were then calculated for each Likert‐scale question. Thematic analyses were completed on the open‐ended questions.

Results

There was significant improvement in student scores with the intervention (over those of controls) in the Spring 2019 semester (Meanintervention = 1.13, Meancontrol = 0.92, P <0.01). In the post‐course survey, 54.1% of students indicated that they would not recommend using the VHD in future semesters. Among the students that recommend using it, 64.8% stated it helped to rotate structures, 51.4% stated it helped provide context for what they saw on models, and 48.9% stated that it was a change of pace from other lab responsibilities. Among the students that wouldn’t recommend using the VHD, 50.1% stated they did not find it beneficial, 34% stated it helped to rotate structures, and 23.4% stated it was a change of pace from other lab responsibilities. A statistically significant correlation was also found between enjoying use of the VHD and perception of learning using the VHD (r = 0.794, P <0.01). Thematic analyses demonstrate that, while students identify the benefits of using the new technology and recognize the niche that it is meant to fill, they would prefer further scaffolding early in the process and additional emphasis on the exams if the lab is to continue utilizing this form of instruction.

Conclusion and Potential Impact

These results indicate that there is a benefit to student outcomes with dissection software at the undergraduate level. Furthermore, students recognize this benefit, yet require additional instruction and assessment with the technology to further buy‐in to its use in the lab.

Support or Funding Information

This work was partially supported by IMPRS.