Evaluating dissection in the gross anatomy course: Correlation between quality of laboratory dissection and students outcomes

Anatomy learned by active exploration through dissection has many proven benefits including improvement of anatomic knowledge. Decreased laboratory time may affect the quality of dissection and ultimately lower student performance in anatomy translating to lower knowledge acquisition. The aim of this study was to determine whether the quality of students' dissection in teams correlates with their performance in the gross anatomy course. Quality of dissections for each team enrolled in a gross anatomy course at Mayo Medical School was evaluated biweekly using a five-point rubric based on course learning objectives. Assessment of anatomic knowledge was based on sequential laboratory practice practical examination scores, achievements on daily audience response system (ARS) quizzes, and final practical, written, and National Board of Medical Examiners(®) (NBME(®) ) Gross Anatomy and Embryology Subject Examinations. Twelve teams comprising 48 students were included in the study. There was a positive correlation between dissection quality and practice practical examination score (R = 0.83) and a negative correlation between dissection quality and ARS quizzes (R = -0.985). Dissection teams with a passing score on their dissection evaluations (>70%) performed better on their final examinations. Based on an end of course survey, students agreed that dissection evaluations should continue to be a part of the course. This study showed that better quality of dissection was associated with higher scores on practice practical examinations, final practical, written, and NBME examinations. The study demonstrated a positive correlation between dissection evaluations, accompanied by formative feedback during the course, and higher scores on final course assessments.

Group in-course assessment promotes cooperative learning and increases performance

The authors describe and evaluate a method to motivate medical students to maximize the effectiveness of dissection opportunities by using In-Course-Assessments (ICAs) to encourage teamwork. A student's final mark was derived by combining the group dissection mark, group mark for questions, and their individual question mark. An analysis of the impact of the ICA was performed by comparing end of module practical summative marks in student cohorts who had, or had not, participated in the ICAs. Summative marks were compared by two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnets test, or by repeated measures ANOVA, as appropriate. A cohort of medical students was selected that had experienced both practical classes without (year one) and with the new ICA structure (year two). Comparison of summative year one and year two marks illustrated an increased improvement in year two performance in this cohort. A significant increase was also noted when comparing this cohort with five preceding year two cohorts who had not experienced the ICAs (P <0.0001). To ensure that variation in the practical summative examination was not impacting on the data, a comparison was made between three cohorts who had performed the same summative examination. Results show that students who had undertook weekly ICAs showed significantly improved summative marks, compared with those who did not (P <0.0001). This approach to ICA promotes engagement with learning resources in an active, team-based, cooperative learning environment.