Leave it to the Learners … Student Perspectives on the Effectiveness of Prosection and Dissection

Abstract

Studies have shown that prosection and dissection facilitate similar academic outcomes and promote meaningful learning in anatomy laboratory courses. While dissection is the mainstay of many graduate level anatomy curricula, financial and other constraints have increased the use of prosection. This research evaluates student preference for studying different body regions and accomplishing learning outcomes related to content knowledge, teamwork, career preparation, humanistic learning, and wellness.First‐year medical students (n=51) who completed a hybrid prosection and dissection course completed a post‐course survey about their perceptions of the effectiveness of each lab learning modality. Response options included prosection, dissection, no preference (equally effective), and no preference (equally ineffective). A one‐way ANOVA was used to evaluate performance differences on course assessments between students in the hybrid course and students in past years who participated in a dissection based course.The response rate was 51%. Respondents preferred dissection for learning the back (62%), thorax (68%), abdomen (54%), shoulder, axilla, and arm (61.5%), and hip, thigh, and leg (46%). Prosection was favored for the pelvis (perineum 81%, cavity 69%), foot (58%), hand (46%), and head/neck (64%). Students favored dissection for gaining hands‐on skills relevant to surgical practice, appreciating anatomical variation, becoming more comfortable handling the human body, engaging in self‐directed learning, and fostering teamwork. Respondents felt prosection provided more time for independent study and wellness activities. Prosection and dissection were rated equally effective for developing a medical vocabulary, applying anatomical knowledge to clinical conditions, and gaining a 3D appreciation of the body. A hybrid prosection and dissection course was preferred by 73% of respondents, compared to 4% who ranked prosection alone as their preference; no students ranked dissection alone as their first choice. There were no statistically significant differences in academic performance related to teaching methods (F(3,195) = 2.65, p=0.34) between students in the hybrid course and students in previous dissection only courses.Students prefer prosection for learning more spatially complex and intricate regions requiring time‐consuming and skilled dissection. However, learners recognize distinct benefits of dissection for acquiring various technical and non‐technical skills. Hybrid courses should capitalize on the strengths of each method, aligning instructional methods with outcomes and incorporating learner preferences to achieve meaningful, lasting learning.