Traditional teaching supported by computer-assisted learning for macroscopic anatomy.код для вставкиСкачать
THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) 278B:18 –22, 2004 EDUCATION NOTE Traditional Teaching Supported by ComputerAssisted Learning for Macroscopic Anatomy RODRIGO E. ELIZONDO-OMAÑA,* JESÚS ALBERTO MORALES-GÓMEZ, SANTOS LÓPEZ GUZMÁN, IVÁN LEÓN HERNÁNDEZ, RICARDO PATIÑO IBARRA, AND FÉLIX CAVAZOS VILCHEZ Over the years we have observed that there is a very low passing rate for the Anatomy and Neuroanatomy courses in our department, and for that reason we decided to implement the use of student-learning resources. The objective of this study was to compare the results of traditional methodology with those obtained with the support of computer-assisted learning (CAL). We performed a retrospective and joint study for Anatomy and Neuroanatomy groups during the period of September 2001 to February 2003, to establish a comparison between traditional learning and traditional learning supported by CAL. In the Anatomy group, students who used the traditional method (n1 ⴝ 365) received an average ﬁnal grade of 58 (SD ⴝ 14.94), while the average ﬁnal grade for students who used the traditional method supported by CAL (n2 ⴝ 283) was 68 (SD ⴝ 14.56). In the Neuroanatomy group, the students who used the traditional method (n3 ⴝ 217) had an average ﬁnal grade of 61 (SD ⴝ 14.51), while the students who used the traditional method supported by CAL (n4 ⴝ 134) received an average ﬁnal grade of 68 (SD ⴝ 13.52). A z-test was conducted to determine the difference in averages between the two groups (␣ ⴝ 0.05), and the results showed that the averages were signiﬁcantly different (P < .001). The modiﬁed traditional method with CAL support was shown to be the best option in comparison with the traditional method. Anat Rec (Part B: New Anat) 278B:18 –22, 2004. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. KEY WORDS: computer-assisted learning; education; medical education; anatomy INTRODUCTION This study discusses how we have taken our traditional teaching methDr. Rodrigo E. Elizondo-Omaña is the coordinator of scholarship recipients for the Department of Human Anatomy, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, México. Drs. Jesús Alberto Morales-Gómez and Ricardo Patiño Ibarra are scholarship recipients from the Department of Human Anatomy, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, México. Dr. Santos López Guzmán is the head of the Department of Human Anatomy, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, México. Dr. Iván León Hernández is a resident in Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, México. Dr. Félix Cavazos Vilchez is a resident in Traumatology, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, México. *Correspondence to: Rodrigo E. Elizondo-Omaña, Department of Human Anatomy, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Ave. Madero y Dr. Aguirre Pequeño. C.P. 3-4107, Monterrey, N.L., México. E-mail: email@example.com DOI 10.1002/ar.b.20019 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. odology and supported it with computer-assisted learning. Since the time of Aristotle, the study of the relationship between form and function, such as anatomy and physiology, has been considered a basic part of education in the health sciences (Paalman, 2000). For this reason, the subject of anatomy is indispensable in medical teaching. Over the years, methods of teaching anatomy have gone through three stages, from simple observation to dissection of cadavers, and now to computer-assisted learning (CAL) (Trelease, 2002). In 1910, Flexner introduced a medical education technique in which both basic and clinical sciences used the scientiﬁc method. In the 1980s this method was criticized for being too “horizontal” and “vertical” (that is to say, divided into independent compartments with no integration). It was also thought that students should not have access to patients if the students were not prepared in basic science (Marks and Cahill, 1988). With this method (termed the “traditional” method), the student attends confer- ences and the learning is passive. As a consequence, the use of the traditional method declined with the introduction of reform in the 1980s, which proposed that training in medical education must be integrated and patient-oriented (Marks and Cahill, 1988). This reform introduced new techniques, such as problem-based learning (PBL) and small student groups to study cases, which were aided by “facilitators” who helped to integrate basic and clinical knowledge (Aziz et al., 2002). This modiﬁcation considerably reduced the amount of time that students could dedicate to the study of certain subjects, including anatomy (Marks and Cahill, 1988), and some universities even abandoned the dissection of cadavers altogether (Aziz et al, 2002). Education protocols for the ﬁrst 2 years of medical school are changing, and over the past few years many schools have revised their curriculums or have started to debate how to modify them (Pabst and Rothkötter, 1997; Drake, 1998). New techniques and resources for teaching anatomy EDUCATION NOTE THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) 19 Figure 1. The classical traditional form of teaching during the theory class. The students only listen to the professor’s presentation. have been developed. For example, CAL is now used in human anatomy laboratories (Paalman, 2000). Additionally, different teaching techniques have been introduced, such as “brainstorming” (Geuna and Giacobini-Robecchi, 2002), animated presentations in Power Point (Carmichael and Pawlina, 2000), and educational videos (Galván et al., 1999). These new methods have yielded good results. In addition, three-dimensional software and multimedia computer programs for anatomy (Schwartz, 1980) have been developed for the same purpose (Trelease, 2002; Van Sint Jan et al., 2003). In the past, our department has observed a very low passing rate for the Anatomy and Neuroanatomy courses, and for that reason we decided to implement the use of other resources for student learning. In this work we discuss how we have taken our traditional teaching methodology and supported it with CAL. We conducted a detailed study of the results obtained with the use of traditional methods only versus CAL-supported traditional teaching, which showed that learning improved with the latter method. omy groups, from September 2001 through February 2003. The grades obtained by the students in these courses were considered as a dependent variable, and the method used (traditional or modiﬁed traditional) was an independent variable. We did not take into consideration demographic variables such as age, sex, or socioeconomic level, or psychological variables. All of the students used an ofﬁcial textbook (Lockhart et al., 1965), and they were encouraged to consult a complementary atlas (Netter, 1997). In addition, for the past 4 years the department has updated a macroscopic anatomy compendium every semester, which includes clinical notes related to the content of the course. In the school’s bookstore, there is also a list of additional books for consultation (textbooks as well as anatomical atlases). The students have the option of purchasing these resources, and they rarely take advantage of this option because they would incur an additional expense, and the exams are based on the content of the ofﬁcial textbook. In addition to these supplementary materials, the department includes an area with a bone collection and an amphitheater, where students have access to materials such as bones, anatomical models, and cadavers. When the students followed the traditional method (Fig. 1), the Anatomy group spend 91 h on theory and 60 h on dissection of cadavers. The Neuroanatomy groups spent 55 h on theory and 30 h on dissection of cadavers. For groups that used the modiﬁed traditional method, the theory and dissection classes were of the same duration, and a virtual classroom was used (Fig. 2). With this method, each student’s class attendance was registered on a credential that was given to the student at the beginning of the course. When the students ﬁnished their rotation, the frequency with which they had attended the classroom was counted and they were accordingly awarded points toward their ﬁnal grade (Table 1). It must be mentioned that the students were only able to attend the classroom a maximum of METHODOLOGY A retrospective and joint study was carried out in which traditional (classical) learning was compared with traditional learning supported by CAL (hereafter referred to as “modiﬁed traditional”) in Anatomy and Neuroanat- Figure 2. The virtual classroom setup used in the modiﬁed traditional teaching method. 20 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) EDUCATION NOTE TABLE 1. Points awarded for attendance in the virtual classroom Points Awarded Percentage of Attendance Required Minimum Number of Attendances Required 3 2 1 0 100% 70% 50% Less than 49% Only 40 28–39 20–27 0–19 two times a week (2 h per week), due to student demand and physical space limitations. The virtual classroom is a physical space located in the area of the Department of Human Anatomy. It has 24 personal computers that can be used by students to consult different programs, such as Power Point slides, a multimedia program (Fig. 3) created by the professors in the same department (Elizondo-Omaña et al., 2003), and various commercial interactive atlases. Registered students in the Anatomy and Neuroanatomy courses were divided into two groups. One group was taught with the traditional method, and the other group was taught with the modiﬁed traditional method. The students’ average grades were obtained and then compared by means of a z-test at the end of the course for each subject. STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF TEACHING METHODS For the sample (n1 ⫽ 365) of the Anatomy groups using the traditional method, an average ﬁnal grade of 58 (SD ⫽ 14.94) (Table 2) was obtained, with 24.93% (n ⫽ 91) passing. The average grade for students who passed the course was 77.96 (SD ⫽ 6.53). For the sample (n2 ⫽ 283) of the Anatomy groups that used the traditional method supported by CAL, an average ﬁnal grade of 68 (SD ⫽ 14.56) (Table 2) was obtained, with 53.71% (n ⫽ 152) passing. The average grade for students who passed the course was 79.20 (SD ⫽ 6.40). For the sample (n3 ⫽ 217) of the Neuroanatomy groups using the traditional method, an average ﬁnal grade of 61 (SD ⫽ 14.51) (Table 3) was obtained, with 34.10% (n ⫽ 74) passing. The average grade for students who passed the course was 78.19 (SD ⫽ 5.65). For the sample (n4 ⫽ 134) of the Neuroanatomy groups using the traditional method supported by CAL, an average ﬁnal grade of (SD ⫽ 13.52) (Table 3) was obtained, with 58.2 % (n ⫽ 78) passing. The average grade of students who passed the course was 77.98 (SD ⫽ 6.61). A z-test was conducted to determine the difference between the average of the two groups (␣ ⫽ 0.05), which revealed that the averages of the groups were different (P ⬍ .001). DISCUSSION Changing the macroscopic anatomy curriculum is a challenging task, and it is necessary to evaluate educational methods to determine which are the most effective and efﬁcient. In our study we observed a signiﬁcant difference between the methods used in terms of average student grades. In agreement with our observation, Trelease (2002) concluded that the study of anatomy beneﬁts from the incorporation of new methodologies based on computer and information sciences. However, since we did not compare the traditional and CAL-only methods in an isolated fashion, the current results must be interpreted with caution, as we believe that it is the combination of both techniques that produced the improvement. Previous studies also obtained good results with the use of CAL in anatomy courses. For example, Carmichael and Pawlina (2000) noted that interactive resources, such as animated Power Point presentations, are excellent tools for teaching anatomy. Geuna and Giacobini-Robecchi (2002) concluded that brainstorming in anatomy courses can be a very efﬁcient means of stimulating learning. According to Galván et al. (1999), the use of educational videos increases retention and long-term learning. On the other hand, in a study in which each learning method was isolated, Bukowski (2002) found no statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups of students who attended a theory class with cadaver dissection (completed traditional cadaver human gross anatomy course) and those who took a computerized self-directed course with no cadaver. Therefore, Bukowski (2002) suggested that technological resources do not provide a clear advantage. This is in contrast to the current study, in which CAL was used in combination with the traditional method. Previous studies by Plack (2000) and Peck and Benton (1970) indicated that CAL alone can be just as effective as the traditional method. The results we obtained show, at least for our department, that a clear Figure 3. A multimedia program created by the professors in the department. EDUCATION NOTE THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) 21 TABLE 2. Grades in anatomy: average, SD, and population size studied using both teaching methods Anatomy Average SD N Traditional Method Modiﬁed Traditional 58 14.94 365 68 14.56 283 TABLE 3. Grades in anatomy: average, SD, and population size studied using both teaching methods Neuroanatomy Average SD N Traditional Method Modiﬁed Traditional 61 14.51 217 68 13.51 134 advantage can be obtained with the modiﬁed traditional method. The change in the grade average observed with the use of the modiﬁed traditional method was directly inﬂuenced by the points awarded based on student attendance in the virtual classroom, but this increase was not sufﬁcient to explain the difference observed in the group average. The results of our study suggest that an increase in the time dedicated to studying the subject, and the study method employed positively affected the achievement of students using CAL. The high rate of failure may be due to the absence of both; the combination (traditional method plus CAL) of both systems produced the difference in our study. We do not know the exact cause of the high rate of failure by our students in Anatomy, but we believe that two factors may be the way the course is taught and the high difﬁculty of the exams (which have a morphological focus). Among other problems, we found that our students had not taken premedical courses, and we noted some demographical characteristics of the population (e.g., median age ⫽ 17 years) that may also be involved (Caplan et al., 1996; Forester et al., 2002). In addition, we believe that the number of hours a student spends studying a subject have a direct inﬂuence on achievement. We do not believe that a lack of trained teaching personnel is a factor, because the traditional class was taught by full-time professors, who were each assisted by two scholarship students. According to other authors, multimedia resources are more widely accepted than the above-mentioned resources (such as bone collections and amphitheaters). The advantages of CAL include a more attractive presentation for students, the possibility of “surﬁng” the program according to one’s needs, and interaction with the user. Given these advantages, we chose CAL as a resource to aid students in increasing their achievement scores in our department. The students who used multimedia resources received the same information as those who did not use them. The difference in the results reﬂects the manner in which the information was presented, and, in our opinion, the CAL presentation was more attractive. The difference in achievement between groups is probably due to the fact that students who used multimedia resources were exposed to the study material for at least 20 additional hours during the semester. We must mention that in our research, variables that could have in some manner affected the results (such as age, sex, and socioeconomic condition) were not taken into consideration. It is known that certain student educational and psychological factors (such as emotional, intellectual, and personality aspects) can affect study results, as well as the educational level reached by the students. Therefore, further research must be conducted in which these demographic and psychological variables are taken into account to obtain more exact results. Finally, we believe that if students would invest more time in areas such as the bone collection and amphitheater, they would probably achieve more, as was the case with the use of CAL. However, we cannot afﬁrm that greater exposure to traditional materials (e.g., bone collections and anatomical models) would result in equal numbers of students passing the subject. For that reason, we recommend that a study be carried out comparing traditional learning enhanced by CAL vs. traditional learning enhanced by traditional resources (bone collections and anatomical models), using the same number of additional hours for both groups. LITERATURE CITED Aziz MA, Mckenzie JC, Wilson JS. 2002. The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. Anat Rec 269:20 – 32. Bukowski EL. 2002. Assessment outcomes: Computerized instruction in a human gross anatomy course. J Allied Health 31;153–158. Caplan RM, Kreiter C, Albanese M. 1996. Preclinical science course “preludes” taken by premedical students: Do they provide a competitive advantage? Acad Med 71:920 –922. Carmichael SW, Pawlina W. 2000. Animated Power Point as a tool to teach anatomy. Anat Rec 261:83– 88. Drake RL. 1998. Anatomy education in a changing medical curriculum. Anat Rec 253:28 –31. Elizondo-Omaña RE, Hernández León I, Guzmán López S, et al. 2003. Multimedia resources for teaching human anatomy [Abstract]. Exp Biol 281:8. Forester JP, McWhorter DL, Cole MS. 2002. The relationship between premedical coursework in gross anatomy and histology and medical school performance in gross anatomy and histology. Clin Anat 15:160 –164. Galván SM, Visciglio S, Andreotti C, et al. 1999. The effects of the use of image technologies in the learning of factic subjects upon students of veterinary anatomy. Rev Chil Anat 17:1–15. Geuna S, Giacobini-Robecchi MG. 2002. The use of brainstorming for teaching human anatomy. Anat Rec 269:214 –216. Lockhart RD, Hamilton GF, Fyfe FW. 1965. Anatomı́a humana. Interamericana. 22 THE ANATOMICAL RECORD (PART B: NEW ANAT.) Marks SC, Cahill DR. 1988. Teaching and learning anatomy in medicine. Clin Anat 1:3–5. Netter FH. 1997. Atlas de anatomı́a humana. 2nd ed. Masson. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis Paalman MH. 2000. Why teach anatomy? Anatomists respond. Anat Rec 261:1–2. Pabst R, Rothkötter HJ. 1997. Retrospective evaluation of undergraduate medical education by doctors at the end of their residency time in hospitals: Conse- quences for the anatomical curriculum. Anat Rec 249:431– 434. Peck D, Benton RS. 1970. The introduction of programmed instruction into a gross anatomy course by means of unit programming. J Med Educ 45;760 –769. Plack MM. 2000. Computer assisted instruction versus traditional instruction in teaching human gross anatomy. J Phys Ther Educ 14;38 – 43. Schwartz EL. 1980. Computational anatomy and functional architecture of stri- EDUCATION NOTE ate cortex: A spatial mapping approach to perceptual coding. Vision Res 20:198 – 216. Trelease RB. 2002. Anatomical informatics: Millennial perspectives on a newer frontier. Anat Rec 269:224 –235. Van Sint Jan S, Crudele M, Gashegu J, et al. 2003. Development of multimedia learning modules for teaching human anatomy: Application to osteology and functional anatomy. Anat Rec (New Anat) 272B:98 –106.