THE USAGE OF ANATOMAGE AND PLASTINATION IN ANATOMY LEARNING: STUDENT PERCEPTIONS AND LEARNING OUTCOMES

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.48798

Nurfitri Bustamam(1*), Diana Agustini Purwaningastuti(2)

(1) Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta, Jakarta – INDONESIA
(2) Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta, Jakarta – INDONESIA
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Background: In the Academic Year 2017/2018 the Faculty of Medicine Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta (FMUPNVJ) began using anatomage and plastination as learning tools. This study aims to describe the learning process, compare learning outcomes of students after using anatomage and plastination with the learning outcomes of students in the previous academic year, and describe students’ perceptions regarding the learning tools used.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on the population of second-semester FMUPNVJ students who had taken dermatomusculoskeletal (DMS) block in the academic year 2017/2018. Data were taken from the total population (n = 163). A questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale and open-ended questions were used to obtain student perceptions related to the learning process and the learning tools used. Semester grade point average (GPA) before taking the DMS block and results of anatomy practical exam of the subjects (n = 163) and students of the previous academic year (n = 157) were analyzed.

Results: The students appreciate learning using anatomage and plastination. The Mann-Whitney test result showed that there was no difference in semester GPA before taking DMS block between the two groups (p = 0.090). However, the learning outcomes after using anatomage and plastination were lower than those using only cadaver and mannequin (p = 0.002). Each learning tool has some advantages and disadvantages. Conclusion: The usage of anatomage and plastination at Anatomy Laboratory FMUPNVJ has not been able to improve learning outcomes. Anatomage features need to be used optimally to enhance the learning outcomes.


Keywords


anatomage, anatomy learning, learning outcomes, plastination

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Perhimpunan Ahli Anatomi Indonesia. Buku Standar Kurikulum Anatomi. Perhimpunan Ahli Anatomi Indonesia. 2019; pp. 5-7.
  2. Mogali SR, Yeong WY, Tan HKJ, Tan GJS, Abrahams PH, Zary N, et al. Evaluation by medical students of the educational value of multi-material and multi-colored three-dimensional printed models of the upper limb of anatomical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11:54-64.
  3. Azer SA, Azer S. 3D anatomy models and impact on learning: a review of the quality of the literature. Health Professions Education. 2016;2:80-98.
  4. Peterson DC, Mlynarczyk GSA. Analysis of traditional versus three-dimensional augmented curriculum on anatomical learning outcome measures. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:529–36.
  5. Mutalik M, Belsare S. Methods to learn human anatomy: perceptions of medical students in paraclinical and clinical phases regarding cadaver dissection and other learning methods. Int J Res Med Sci. 2016 Juli;4(7):2536-41.
  6. Sheikh AH, Barry DS, Gutierrez H, Cryan JF, O’Keeffe GW. Cadaveric anatomy in the future of medical education: what is the surgeons view? Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9:203–8.
  7. Custer T, Kimberly M. The utilization of the anatomage virtual dissection table in the education of imaging science students. J Tomogr Simul. 2015. https://digitalcommons. unmc.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https:// www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article =1000&context=cahp_rste_articles
  8. Anand MK, Singel TC. A comparative study of learning with “anatomage” virtual dissection table versus traditional dissection method in neuroanatomy. Indian J Clin Anat Physiol. 2017;4(2):177-80.
  9. Kazoka D, Pilmane M. 3D dissection tools in anatomage supported interactive human anatomy teaching and learning. SHS Web of Conferences 2019;68. https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2019/09/shsconf_shw2019 _02015.pdf
  10. Newble D, Cannon R. A Handbook for Medical Teachers. 4th ed. London: Kluwer Academic Publication. 2001; pp. 1-13.
  11. Pandey P, Zimitat C. Medical students’ learning of anatomy: memorization, understanding and visualization. Med Educ. 2007;41:7-14.
  12. Boscolo-Berto R, Tortorella C, Porzionato A, Stecco C, Picardi EEE, Macchi V, et al. The additional role of virtual to traditional dissection in teaching anatomy: a randomised controlled trial. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-020-02551-2
  13. Baratz G, Wilson-Delfosse AL, Ratnaparkhi R, Jenks BP, Singelyn BM, Carlton C, et al. Evaluating the anatomage table compared to cadaveric dissection as a learning modality for gross anatomy. Medical Science Educator. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00719-z
  14. Allen MA, Kirkpatrick N, Agosto ER. Anatomage Table 6. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries. 2019:1-8. https://trace.tennessee.edu/ cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=utk_libpub
  15. Paech D, Giesel FL, Schlemmer H-P, Unterhinninghofen R, Kuner T, Doll S. Cadaver-specific CT scans visualized at the dissection table combined with virtual dissection tables improve learning performance in general gross anatomy. Eur Radiol. 2017. May;27(5):2153-60.
  16. Ruiz JG, Cook DA, Levinson AJ. Computer animations in medical education: a critical review literature. Med Educ. 2009;43:838-46.
  17. Wainman B, Wolak L, Pukas G, Zheng E, Norman GR.The superiority of three-dimensional physical models to two-dimensional computer presentations in anatomy learning. Med Educ. 2018:52:1138–46
  18. Fyfe S, Fyfe G, Dye D, Radley-Crabb H.The anatomage table: differences in student ratings between initial implementation and established use. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal 2018;19(2). https://fohpe.org/FoHPE/ article/ view/215/131
  19. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: a critical review. Ann. Anatomy. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2016.02.010
  20. Tenaw B. Teaching gross anatomy: anatomage table as an innovative line of attack. Int J Anat Var. 2020;13(1): 76-9.
  21. Qamar K, Ahmad A, Ashar A. Comparison of learning anatomy with cadaveric dissection and plastic models by medical students. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2004;64(2):219-24.
  22. Bergman EM, Van Der Vleuten CPM, Scherpbier AJJA. Why don’t they know enough about anatomy? A narrative review. Med Teach. 2011;33:403-9.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.48798

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 1588 | views : 1567

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Nurfitri Bustamam, Diana Agustini Purwaningastuti

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education) indexed by:


JPKI Stats