This document summarizes a study analyzing the effectiveness of changes made to anatomy dissections and teaching methods over three years. Student performance on practical exams was compared between cohorts from 2011 to 2013. Changes implemented included moving dissections earlier, digital materials, pre-dissection lectures, and weekly online quizzes for the 2013 cohort. Results found the 2012 and 2013 cohorts performed better than 2011, but there was no significant difference between the last two cohorts. Student feedback indicated dissections were effective and preferred methods included pre-lectures and digital/hard copy materials. The author concludes timing changes and additional assessment did not distinctly improve the 2013 cohort's performance.

1. STUDENT CENTRED LEARNING
FOR QUALITY TEACHING IN
ANATOMY
BUDDHIKA WEERASUNDERA
SENIOR LECTURER KNOWLEDGE HEALTH AND
ILLNESS
FLINDERS NT
28.10.2014
*No commercial interests
*This study has not received any financial support
*There is no conflict of interests

2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES
 IDENTIFY THE TEACHING METHODS
THAT WERE DESIGNED FOR LEARNING
ANATOMY
 COMPARE THE CHANGES THAT WERE
IMPLEMENTED FOR DISSECTIONS
OVER A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS
 ANALYSE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
CHANGES THAT WERE ADOPTED

3. DISSECTIONS AS A LEARNING TOOL

5. STUDY
 Student performances in the practical
exam of the 3 batches of students
(2011-16, 2012-22, 2013-22) at the KHI
exams were analysed.
Three Practical Exams
 1. KHI 1B at the end of First year 2nd
semester (CVS, RS, Renal)
 2. KHI 2A at the end of Second year first
semester (GIT, ERS, Repro)
 3. KHI 2B at the end of Second year
second semester (MSS, BB)

6. CHANGES IMPLEMENTED
 METHODS OF TEACHING: Hard copies of
notes, Digital images and notes on screens
and predissection lecture by the tutor.
 TIMING: Second year first semester to First
year second semester from 2013 cohort.
 ASSESSMENT: 2 MCQs (each pair of
students) submitted each week of semester
(17 in total/student) for 2013 cohort in
addition to assessing attendance and
feedback of dissections.

7. METHOD
 Marks of total number of 60 students were
analysed.
 Of the 60 students, 16 from 2011 cohort, 22
from 2012 cohort and 22 from the 2013
cohort.
 There were 9 Indigenous students and 51
non-Indigenous students.
 9 students were from the BCSC programme
while 51 students were from the graduate
entry programme.
 Student feedback to determine their views
about the changes were also obtained.

8. RESULTS
50 60 70 80 90 100
KHI 2B
KHI 2A
KHI 1B
Mean value of marks
2013
2012
2011

9. RESULTS
25
20
15
10
5
0
Standard deviation of marks
KHI 1B KHI 2A KHI 2B
2011
2012
2013

10. RESULTS

11. STUDENT FEEDBACK
 Questionnaire sent to students of all
three cohorts (60 students)
 Responses received from 44 students
 Anonymity maintained

12. STUDENT FEEDBACK
Effectiveness of dissections
9%
44%
33%
12%
2%
A: Extremely effective
B: Very effective
C: Moderately effective
D: Slightly effective
E: Not effective

13. STUDENT FEEDBACK

14. STUDENT FEEDBACK
44%
14%
42%
Preferred tools and methods of learning
A: Pre-dissection lecture from tutor
B: Hard copy of instruction booklet and
images on touchscreen
C: Hard copy of instruction booklet, images
on touchscreen and instructions on-screen

15. STUDENT FEEDBACK

16. CONCLUSION
 KHI1B: No significant difference between the three cohorts
 KHI2A:
-Significant differences between
2011 and 2012 (p=0.043)
2012 and 2013 (p=0.019)
-No significant difference between
2011 and 2013
 KHI2B:
-Significant differences between
2011 and 2012 (p=0.047)
2011 and 2013 (p=0.004)
-No significant difference between
2012 and 2013

17. CONCLUSION
 No distinct improvement in 2013 cohort
after changes in timing and method of
assessment, compared to 2012 cohort.
 However, overall performance of 2012
and 2013 cohorts is better than 2011
cohort.
 Student feedback…..

18. CONFOUNDING FACTORS
 The selection criteria for the third
cohort was different from the first two:
2011 & 2012: Graduate entry*
2013: Graduate entry and BCSC
*2011: Lengthy period after graduation,
variable ‘basic’ degree

19. LIMITATIONS
 Part time students and students who were not able to proceed to the
following years were excluded from the study.
 Pre-knowledge of students were different and was not assessed and
therefore not available for comparison.
 Medical students represent a selected group of high performers and
are not strongly affected by extra educational efforts.
 Students usually compensate for any educational intervention in
their own time as they want to pass and achieve high scores.
 Acquisition of anatomical knowledge is a complex process that may
be difficult to research objectively.
 Learning Outcomes for a dissection course is determined by many
factors – not just practical exam performance.
 Students were exposed to a combination of teaching methods for
learning anatomy and the comparison was done only with changes
in dissections.
 Smaller sample size in the NTMP.
 Some of the questions in the practical exam are blended with
sections other than dissections (ie, histology, physiology).

20. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 Helen Wozniak, Academic Director e-learning
& Evaluation, Flinders NT
 A/Prof Greg Raymond, Director of
Preclinical Education, Flinders NT
 Dave Newman, AudioVisual/ICT Officer,
Flinders NT

21. REFERENCES
 NT Medicine Programme Course Details
http://www.flinders.edu.au/medicine/sites/nt-clinical-school/students/medical-students_
home.cfm (13.02.2014)
 Biggs, J., Tang, C. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 4th Edition,
Open University Press, Berkshire, England
 Winkelmann,A.2007. Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical
school: a review of the evidence, Medical Education 41:15-22
 December, SKI et al. 2014. Clinical vignettes Improve Performance in Anatomy
Practical Assessment, Anatomical Sciences Education, ase.1471
 Nwachukwu,C et al. 2014. Evaluating Dissection in the Gross Anatomy
Course:Correlation Between Quality of Laboratory Dissection and Students
Outcomes, Anatomical Sciences Education, ase. 1458
 Pereira, JA et al. 2007. Effectiveness of using blended learning strategies for
teaching and learning human anatomy, Medical Education 41:189-195