Student perception of a new integrated anatomy practical program: Does students' prior learning make a difference?

• Published in: Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2011-07, Vol.24 (5), p.664-670
• Main Authors: Tedman, R.A., Alexander, H., Massa, H., Moses, D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: anatomy; Anatomy - education; Attitude of Health Personnel; Dissection; education; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods; Educational Measurement; Humans; instrument; MBBS; practical; Problem-Based Learning; Program Evaluation; student background; Students, Medical - psychology
• ISSN: 0897-3806; 1098-2353
• DOI: 10.1002/ca.21180

While there is evidence that science and non‐science background students display small differences in performance in basic and clinical sciences, early in a 4‐year, graduate entry medical program, this lessens with time. With respect to anatomy knowledge, there are no comparable data as to the impact previous anatomy experience has on the student perception of the anatomy practical learning environment. A study survey was designed to evaluate student perception of the anatomy practical program and its impact on student learning, for the initial cohort of a new medical school. The survey comprised 19 statements requiring a response using a 5‐point Likert scale, in addition to a free text opportunity to provide opinion of the perceived educational value of the anatomy practical program. The response rate for a total cohort of 82 students was 89%. The anatomy practical program was highly valued by the students in aiding their learning of anatomy, as indicated by the high mean scores for all statements (range: 4.04–4.7). There was a significant difference between the students who had and had not studied a science course prior to entering medicine, with respect to statements that addressed aspects of the course related to its structure, organization, variety of resources, linkage to problem‐based learning cases, and fairness of assessment. Nonscience students were more positive compared to those who had studied science before (P levels ranging from 0.004 to 0.035). Students less experienced in anatomy were more challenged in prioritizing core curricular knowledge. Clin. Anat. 24:664–670, 2011. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.