The study techniques of Asian, American, and European medical students during gross anatomy and neuroanatomy courses in Poland

BackgroundPast research in medical education has addressed the study of gross anatomy, including the most effective learning techniques, comparing the use of cadavers, dissection, anatomy atlases, and multimedia tools. The aim of this study was to demonstrate similarities and differences among American, Asian, and European medical students (MS) regarding different study methods and to see how these methods affected their clinical skills.MethodsTo analyze the varying study methods of European, American, and Asian MS in our program and in order to elucidate any ethnic and cultural differences a survey was conducted. A total of 705 international MS, from the Polish (PD), American (AD), and Taiwanese (TD) divisions, were asked to voluntarily participate in the questionnaire. Students were asked the following questions: which methods they used to study anatomy, and which of the methods they believed were most efficient for comprehension, memorization, and review. The questions were based on a 5-point Likert scale, where 5 was ‘strongly agree’, and 1 was ‘strongly disagree’.ResultsThe PD and AD preferred the use of dissections and prosected specimens to study anatomy. The TD showed less interest in studying from prosected specimens, but did acknowledge that this method was more effective than using atlases, plastic models, or CD-ROMs. Multimedia tools were mainly used for radiological anatomy and review and also for correctly typing proper names of structures using exact anatomical terminology.ConclusionThe findings highlight the differences in study techniques among students from different ethnic backgrounds. The study approaches used in order to accomplish learning objectives was affected by cultural norms that influenced each student group. These differences may be rooted in technological, religious, and language barriers, which can shape the way MS approach learning.

[1]  Taghreed A. Hijazi,et al.  Attitudes and reactions of Jordanian medical students to the dissecting room , 2006, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy.

[2]  M. Liddell,et al.  Effect of medical students' ethnicity on their attitudes towards consultation skills and final year examination performance , 2004, Medical education.

[3]  J. McLachlan,et al.  Teaching anatomy without cadavers , 2004, Medical education.

[4]  R. Snow,et al.  Review of the Evidence. , 1964, Science.

[5]  W. LaFleur.  From agape to organs: religious difference between Japan and America in judging the ethics of transplant. , 2002, Zygon.

[6]  C. E. Dinsmore,et al.  Teaching and learning gross anatomy: Dissection, prosection, or “both of the above?” , 1999, Clinical anatomy.

[7]  P. Ramsden.  Improving Learning: New Perspectives , 1988 .

[8]  Samy A. Azer,et al.  Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students , 2007, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy.

[9]  James Hartley,et al.  Teaching, learning and new technology: a review for teachers , 2007, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[10]  S. Jamieson.  Likert scales: how to (ab)use them , 2004, Medical education.

[11]  D. Patten,et al.  Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future , 2006, Medical education.

[12]  R. Pabst.  Anatomy curriculum for medical students: what can be learned for future curricula from evaluations and questionnaires completed by students, anatomists and clinicians in different countries? , 2009, Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger : official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft.

[13]  M. Mulligan,et al.  International anatomical terminology , 2006, Skeletal Radiology.

[14]  Carla A. Romney,et al.  Incorporating radiology into medical gross anatomy: Does the use of cadaver CT scans improve students' academic performance in anatomy? , 2010, Anatomical sciences education.

[15]  J. Kai,et al.  Wrestling with ethnic diversity: toward empowering health educators , 2001, Medical education.

[16]  W. Monkhouse.  Terminologia Anatomica. International Anatomical Terminology . By the F EDERATIVE C OMMITTEE ON A NATOMICAL T ERMINOLOGY (FCAT). (Pp. x+292. with CD-Rom; EUR 40.39 hardback; ISBN 3 13 115251 6.) Stuttgart: Georg Thieme. 1998. , 2001 .

[17]  S. Bannister,et al.  A Qualitative Study , 2009 .

[18]  Mats Lind,et al.  2D vs 3D, implications on spatial memory , 2001, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2001. INFOVIS 2001..

[19]  A. Khurana,et al.  The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization , 2010, Anatomical sciences education.

[20]  C. Zimitat,et al.  Medical students' learning of anatomy: memorisation, understanding and visualisation , 2007, Medical education.

[21]  G. Norman,et al.  How medical students learn spatial anatomy , 2001, The Lancet.

[22]  H. Lempp,et al.  Perceptions of dissection by students in one medical school: beyond learning about anatomy. A qualitative study , 2005, Medical education.

[23]  A. Winkelmann,et al.  Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence , 2007, Medical education.

[24]  R. Drake,et al.  Anatomy education in a changing medical curriculum , 1998, Kaibogaku zasshi. Journal of anatomy.

[25]  G. Dyer,et al.  Quidne Mortui Vivos Docent? The Evolving Purpose of Human Dissection in Medical Education , 2000, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[26]  John H. Dirckx,et al.  Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology (FCAT). Terminologia Anatomica. International Anatomical Terminology , 1998 .

[27]  Ursula Giedion,et al.  Review of Evidence , 2019, Cybercrime Investigators Handbook.