Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change

• Published in: Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 19; no. 2; pp. 132 - 141
• Main Authors: Patel, K.M., Moxham, B.J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.03.2006
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; anatomists; Anatomy - education; Attitude; attitudes; course aims; curricular change; Curriculum - trends; Europe; Humans; Middle Aged; Surveys and Questionnaires; Teaching - trends; teaching methods; Europe
• ISSN: 0897-3806; 1098-2353
• DOI: 10.1002/ca.20249

Throughout the world, recent developments in medical curricula have led to marked changes in the teaching of gross anatomy. This change has involved decreasing curricular student contact time and the use of new methods for anatomical teaching. Some “modern” anatomists have welcomed the arrival of these novel methods while other, more “traditional,” anatomists have fought to maintain the use of cadaveric dissection. Consequently, controversy over teaching methods has developed to the point that “modernist” and “traditionalist” views within the community of professional anatomists seem to have diverged such that the importance of gross anatomy in the medical curriculum is disputed and that cadaveric dissection by students is no longer the preferred method of teaching. This study tests this hypothesis using Thurstone and Chave attitude analyses to assess attitudes to educational change and the importance of anatomy in medicine and a matrix questionnaire that required professional anatomists to relate course aims to different teaching methods. In total, 112 completed questionnaires were received from anatomists who are employed at higher education institutions that use various teaching methods and who span the academic hierarchy. The results suggest that over 90% of anatomists favor educational change and ∼98% of professional anatomists believe that gross anatomy has an important role to play in clinical medicine. A clear majority of the anatomists (69%) favored the use of human cadaveric dissection over other teaching methods (this method seeming to achieve a range of different course aims/objectives) (P < 0.001; Kruskal–Wallis). Using Kruskal–Wallis statistical tests, the order‐of‐preference for teaching methods was found to be as follows: 1 Practical lessons using cadaveric dissection by students 2 Practical lessons using prosection 3 Tuition based upon living and radiological anatomy 4 Electronic tuition using computer aided learning (CAL) 5 Didactic teaching alone (e.g. lectures/class room‐based tuition) 6 Use of models The preference for the use of human cadaveric dissection was evident in all groups of anatomists, whether “traditionalist” or “modernist” (P = 0.002, Chi‐squared). These findings are therefore not consistent with our initial hypothesis. Clin. Anat. 19:132–141, 2006. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.