Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorMacNeil, Maryannen_US
dc.contributor.authorIn, Alexanderen_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-23T20:01:33Z
dc.date.available2021-11-23T20:01:33Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2144/43403
dc.description.abstractHuman gross anatomy is a visual science and relies on hands-on learning approaches (e.g., cadaver dissection) to grasp a foundational understanding of the human body. In 2020, COVID-19 forced gross anatomy courses to adjust from hands-on instruction to a remote curriculum, including the CHA 101L (Human Gross Anatomy Lab) course at the University of California, Davis. This study compares anatomical knowledge (prosections and images) of Spring 2020 (S20) students who learned gross anatomy remotely from images to Winter 2020 (W20) students who learned gross anatomy in-person from prosections. The effect of hands-on prosection-based trainings, which was required for all S20 participants to teach as a laboratory aide in the upcoming Winter 2021 or Spring 2021 CHA 101L course, was also analyzed to see how it would affect identification of anatomical structures. Using a quasi-experimental design, eight participants were assigned to one of three groups: W20 Trained (W20-T), Untrained (W20-UT), or S20. W20-UT served as a nonequivalent control group for those participants did not partake in the hands-on prosection training intervention specific for this study. All subjects took two thirty-question multiple choice pre-tests, one prosection-based and one imaged-based. W20-T (n=2) and S20 (n=3) then participated in six 4-hour hands-on prosection training sessions divided by region, like how it was divided in the CHA 101L course. W20-UT (n=3) underwent no training, specific to this study, and had no access to prosections throughout the duration of the study. After all trainings were complete, participates took prosection-based and image-based post-tests, similarly designed as the pre-test. All data are reported as mean ± SD (Score/30). No significant differences were found between S20 and W20-T + UT on either the image (20.7 ± 1.5 vs. 17.8 ± 3; P=0.07) or prosection pre-tests (12.3 ± 5.1 vs. 16.2 ± 6.1, P=0.19). For the prosection tests, training did not produce significant increases in W20-T scores (pre: 18.5 ± 4.9 vs. post: 24.5 ± 2.1; P=0.02), but there was a significant increase in S20 prosection scores (pre: 12.33 ± 5.1) vs. post: 21.67 ± 2.5); P=0.01). Although W20-T had a higher average score on the posttest than S20, the difference was not significant (P=0.13), which demonstrates that students who learn gross anatomy remotely can translate their knowledge to prosections, and an intensive hands-on cadaver-based training program may help them catch up to those with hands-on anatomy education. Study replication with a larger sample size is needed, and this pilot study provided insight into how to format the pre-test, post-test, and training interventions to minimize outside factors and maximize participation in the surveys.en_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.subjectEducationen_US
dc.titleCan students who learn gross anatomy from 2D images successfully apply their knowledge to human cadaver prosections? A pilot studyen_US
dc.typeThesis/Dissertationen_US
dc.date.updated2021-11-19T23:15:49Z
etd.degree.nameMaster of Scienceen_US
etd.degree.levelmastersen_US
etd.degree.disciplineMedical Sciencesen_US
etd.degree.grantorBoston Universityen_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record