Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes

Ahmed M. S. Hegazy; Liaqat Minhas

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes

Ahmed M. S. Hegazy, Liaqat Minhas

Published in International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy (Volume 1, Issue 3)

Received: 15 July 2015 Accepted: 24 July 2015 Published: 28 July 2015

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Doctors without anatomy are like a blind that deceives the road in the desert. Traditionalists perceive a decline in Anatomy knowledge and attribute it to the modern methods of teaching and learning. Reformers point to evidence that modern approaches offer equivalent results in assessment when compared to traditional courses. It seems that there are three aspects that need to be resolved: when, how much, and how to teach anatomy. In this study we reviewed more than 80 articles to conclude some guidelines which can help in improving anatomy learning outcomes in different medical curricula. Conclusions: We concluded that the challenge should not be to determine supremacy of one methodology over another but to maximize the learning benefit available from the different methods. In any model of medical curricula, a professional team of medical anatomists have to share in all the steps of curriculum building, the assessment tools and the final evaluation till the approval of the curriculum to: 1- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are chronologically arranged and sufficiently covered in a suitable time and methodology without inflation of the curriculum by more sophisticated details which taught only for the postgraduate students and medical anatomists. 2- Prevent any restriction of important basic knowledge which will not be covered later on and will affect the physician medical practice. 3- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are demonstrated with their clinical application without the sophisticated details of the clinical points which will be taught in details in the clinical years

Published in	International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy (Volume 1, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11
Page(s)	52-63
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2015. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Anatomy, Teaching, Medical Curriculum, Medical Education, Methodology

References

[1]	Tyler, R. W. (1949): Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[2]	Taba, H. (1962): Curriculum development theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace & World.
[3]	Ontario Association for Curriculum Development (1983): The Colonel Watson Award (certificate).
[4]	Wilson, L. O. (1990, 2004, 2006): Curriculum course packets ED 721 & 726, unpublished.
[5]	J. G. Donald, “Knowledge and the University Curriculum,” Higher Education 15 (Nos. 3–4 1986): 267.
[6]	Geofferey Squires, First Degree: The Undergraduate Curriculum (Buckingham, England: Society for Research into Higher Education, 1990), ERIC document ED 326 168.
[7]	Arthur Levine, Handbook on Undergraduate Curriculum (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981).
[8]	Harold Taylor, ed., Essays in Teaching (New York: Harper, 1950), p. 220.
[9]	Laurence Veysey, “Stability and Experiment,” in Content and Context, ed. Carl Kaysen (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), p. 73.
[10]	Joan S. Stark and M. A. Lowther, Designing the Learning Plan: A Review of Research and Theory Related to College Curriculum (Ann Arbor: Regents of the University of Michigan, 1986), p. 45.
[11]	Thomas S. Popkewitz, “Knowledge, Power: A General Curriculum,” in Cultural Literacy and the Idea of General Education, 87th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2, ed. Ian Westbury and Alan C. Purves (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 69.
[12]	William E. Toombs and William G. Tierney: Curriculum Definitions and Reference Points; Journal of curriculum and supervision. Spring 1993 \| Volume 8 \| Number 3 Pages 175-195.
[13]	McGaghie WC, Miller GE, Sajid AW and Telder TV. Competency based curriculum development in medical education – An introduction: World Health Organization Geneva 1978.
[14]	J.E.F. Fitzgerald, M.J. White, S.W. Tang, C.A. Maxwell-Armstrong, And D.K. James: Are We Teaching Sufficient Anatomy at Medical School? The Opinions of Newly Qualified Doctors: Clinical Anatomy 21:718–724 (2008).
[15]	Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2007; Mar. 89(2): 104-107.
[16]	Patel KM, Moxham BJ. 2006. Attitudes of professional an atomists tocurricular change. Clin Anat 19:132–141.
[17]	Older J.: Anatomy: a must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon. 2004 Apr;2(2):79-90.
[18]	Raftery AT. 2006. Anatomy teaching in the UK. Surgery 25:1–2.
[19]	McLachlan JC. 2004. New path for teaching anatomy: living anatomy and medical imaging vs. dissection. Anat Rec B New Anat 281:4–5.
[20]	Department of Health. 2003. Modernising Medical Careers. The Response of Four UK Health Ministers to the Consultation on Unfinished Business: Proposals for Reform of the Senior House Officer Grade. London: Department of Health.
[21]	Holla SJ, Selvaraj KG, Isaac B, Chandi G. 1999. Significance of the role of self-study and group discussion. Clin Anat 12:277–280.
[22]	Dangerfield P, Bradley P, Gibbs T. 2000. Learning gross anatomy in a clinical skills course. Clin Anat 13:444–447.
[23]	Evans DJ1, Watt DJ.: Provision of anatomical teaching in a new British medical school: getting the right mix. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2005 May; 284(1):22-7.
[24]	Heylings DJ: Anatomy 1999-2000: the curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Educ. 2002 Aug; 36(8):702-10.
[25]	Leong SK. 1999. Back to basics. Clin Anat 12:422–426.
[26]	Robotham J. Anatomy of a dissection debate. Sydney Morning Herald. [Published 14 April 2011, cited 3 August 2013.] Available from URL: http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/anatomy-of-a-dissection-debate-20110413-1deaf.html.
[27]	Smith JA. Can anatomy teaching make a comeback [editorial]? ANZ J Surg 2005; 75: 93.
[28]	Linacre J. Whither anatomy teaching?: A student perspective [editorial]. ANZ J Surg 2005; 75: 96-97.
[29]	Hanwell S, Davies DC, Morris J, et al. A core syllabus in anatomy for medical students – adding common sense to need to know. Eur J Anat 2007; 11(Supplement 1):3-18.
[30]	Ramsey-Stewart G, Burgess AW, Hill DA. Back to the future: teaching anatomy by whole-body dissection. Med J Aust 2010 (11/12): 668-671.
[31]	Ramsden P. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. 2nd edn. London: Routledge Falmer; 2003. Approaches to learning (Chapter 4) pp. 39–61. ISBN 0-415-30345-1.
[32]	Ramsden P. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. 2nd edn. London: Routledge Falmer; 2003. Learning from the student's perspective (Chapter 5) (ISBN 0-415-30345-1).
[33]	McHanwell S, Atkinson M, Davies D C, Dyball R, Morris J, Ockleford C. A core syllabus in anatomy for medical students - Adding common sense to need to know: Eur J Anat, 11 (Supplement 1) 2007: 3-18.
[34]	European University Association. Activities. Bologna Process. Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna on 19 June 1999. Available at: http://www.eua.be/bologna- universities-reform/bologna-basics/. Accessed: December 29, 2008.
[35]	McKeown PP, Heylings DJ, Stevenson M, McKelvey KJ, Nixon JR, McCluskey DR. The impact of curricular change on medical students' knowledge of anatomy. Med Educ. 2003;37:954–61.
[36]	Kaufman MH. Anatomy training for surgeons – a personal viewpoint. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1997;42:215–6.
[37]	Shaffer K. Teaching anatomy in the digital world. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1279–82.
[38]	Anon. The rise and fall of anatomy. BMJ Career Focus. 2005;330:255–6.
[39]	Waterston SW, Stewart IJ. Survey of clinicians' attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat. 2005;18:380–4.
[40]	Prince KJ, Scherpbier AJ, van Mameren H, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP. Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy? Med Educ. 2005;39:326–32.
[41]	P. Groscurth, P. Eggli, J. Kapfhammer, G. Rager, J.-P. Hornung, And J.D.H. Fasel: Gross Anatomy in the Surgical Curriculum in Switzerland: Improved Cadaver Preservation, Anatomical Models, and Course Development; THE Anatomical Record (New Anat.) 265:254–256, 2001.
[42]	Julius ogeng’o, Kevin Ongeti, Musa Misiani, Beda Olabu.: Maintaining Excellence In Teaching Of Human Anatomy: University Of Nairobi Experience; Anatomy Journal of Africa 2 (1): 117-129(2013).
[43]	Aziz MA, Mc Kenzie JC, Wilson JS, Cowie RJ, Ayeni SA, Dunn BK. 2002. The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. Anat Rec 269: 20-32.
[44]	Vazquez R, Rusco JM, Carretero J. 2005. Reflections and challenges in teaching of human anatomy at the beginning of the 21st century. Eur J Anat 9: 111-115.
[45]	Ellis H. 2001. Teaching in the dissection room. Clin Anat 14: 149-151.
[46]	Rizollo LJ, Stewart WB. 2006. Should we countinue teaching anatomy by dissection when----? Anat Rec B New Anat 189B: 215 – 218.
[47]	Satyapal KS, Henneberg M. 1997. Anatomy into the next millennium: Quo vadis, or simply where to? Clin Anat 10: 41-43.
[48]	Cahill DR, Leonard RJ, Marks Jr SC. 2000. A comment on recent teaching of human anatomy in the United States. Surg Radiol Anat 22: 69-71.
[49]	Tavares MAF, Viera AJ, Trigueiros CN, Dinis MJ, Cardoso V, Sikva MC. 2002. Evaluation of practical sessions in clinical anatomy: A strategy for educational improvement. Clin Anat 15: 51-55.
[50]	Boon JM, Meiring JH, Richards PA, Jacobs CJ. 2001. Evaluation of clinical relevance of problem oriented teaching in undergraduate anatomy at the University of Pretoria. Surg Radiol Anat. 23:57-60.
[51]	Ongeti K. 2012. Pedagogical Value of Dissection Anatomy in Kenya. Singapore med J 53: 712 - 714.
[52]	Gangata H, Ntaba P, Akol P. Louw G. 2010. The reliance on unclaimed cadavers for anatomical teaching by medical students in Africa. Anat Sci Edu 3: 174 – 183.
[53]	Bekele A, Reissig D, Loffler S, Hinz A. 2011. Experiences with dissection courses in human anatomy: a comparison between Germany and Ethiopia. Ann Anat 193: 163 – 167.
[54]	Ogunranti JO. 2008. Challenges and prospects of anatomy in the 21st century. 6th scientific conference – anatomical society of Nigeria, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria – 16th October.
[55]	Rizzolo LJ.: Human dissection: an approach to interweaving the traditional and humanistic goals of medical education. Anat Rec. 2002 Dec 15;269(6):242-8.
[56]	Cottam WW. 1999. Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors. Clin Anat 12:55–65.
[57]	Drake RL, Lowrie DJ Jr, Prewitt CM. 2002. Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec 269:118–122.
[58]	Plaisant O, Cabanis EA, Delmas V. 2004. Going back to dissection in a medical curriculum: The paradigm of Necker-Enfants Malades. Surg Radiol Anat 26:504–511.
[59]	Azer SA, Eizenberg N. 2007. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of firstand second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat 29:173–180.
[60]	Prince KJ, Scherpbier AJ, Van Mameren H, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP. 2005. Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy? Med Educ 39:326–332.
[61]	Spielmann PM, Oliver CW. 2005. The carpal bones: a basic test of medical students’ and junior doctors’ knowledge of anatomy. Surgeon 3:257–259.
[62]	Ellis H. Medico-legal litigation and its links with surgical anatomy. Surgery. 2002;20:i–ii.
[63]	Turney BW, Gill J, Morris JF. Surgical trainees as anatomy demonstrators: revisited. Ann R Coll Surg Engl (Suppl) 2001;83:193–5.
[64]	Schmidt HG, Dauphinee WD, Patel VL.: Comparing the effects of problem-based and conventional curricula in an international sample. J Med Educ. 1987 Apr;62(4):305-15.
[65]	Dyball R. members of the Education Committee of the Anatomical Society and others. Setting a benchmark for anatomical knowledge and its assessment (A core curriculum for the teaching of anatomy to medical students) 2003. < http://www.anatsoc.org.uk/linkfiles/anat-core-curric.htm>.
[66]	Snelling J, Sahai A, Ellis H. Attitudes of medical and dental students to dissection. Clin Anat.2003;16:165–72.
[67]	Lempp HK1.: Perceptions of dissection by students in one medical school: beyond learning about anatomy. A qualitative study. Med Educ. 2005 Mar;39(3):318-25.
[68]	Dinsmore CE, Daugherty S, Zeitz HJ. Teaching and learning gross anatomy: dissection, prosection, or ‘both of the above’? Clin Anat. 1999;12:110–4.
[69]	Jones DG. Reassessing the importance of dissection: a critique and elaboration. Clin Anat. 1997;10:123–7.
[70]	Cahill DR, Leonard RJ. The role of computers and dissection in teaching anatomy: a comment [editorial]Clin Anat. 1997;10:140–1.
[71]	Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM. Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer; 1980.
[72]	Schmidt HG, Dauphinee WD, Patel VL. Comparing the effects of problem-based and conventional curricula in an international sample. J Med Educ. 1987;62:305–15.
[73]	Albanese MA, Mitchell S. Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad Med. 1993;68:52–81.
[74]	Vernon DT, Blake RL. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research.Acad Med. 1993;68:550–63.
[75]	Verhoeven BH, Verwijnen GM, Scherpbier AJJA, Holdrinet RSG, Oeseburg B, Bulte JA, et al. An analysis of progress test results of PBL and non-PBL students. Med Teacher. 1998;20:310–6.
[76]	Winkelmann A.: Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Med Educ. 2007 Jan;41(1):15-22.
[77]	Terrell M. Anatomy of learning: instructional design principles for the anatomical sciences. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2006;289:252-60.
[78]	Patel KM, Moxham BJ. The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by professional anatomists. Clin Anat. 2008;21:182-9.
[79]	Evans DJ, Watt DJ. Provision of anatomical teaching in a new British medical school: getting the right mix. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2005;284:22-7.
[80]	Drake RL. A unique, innovative, and clinically oriented approach to anatomy education. Acad Med. 2007;82:475-8.
[81]	Plaisant O, Cabanis EA, Delmas V. Going back to dissection in a medical curriculum: the paradigm of Necker-Enfants Malades Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26:504-11.
[82]	Latman NS, Lanier R. Gross anatomy course content and teaching methodology in allied health: clinicians’ experiences and recommendations. Clin Anat. 2001;14:152-7.
[83]	Medical Education Unit, Education Precinct, Ground Floor West, Main Building The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Parkville 3050, Victoria Australia, http://www.mh.org.au/royal_melbourne_hospital/medical-education-unit/w1/i1001222/.
[84]	The Pioneer Fellows Program, a 12-month structured training program for clinician educators kicked off on 23 February 2013 with an Orientation session. https://www.singhealth.com.sg/Education/News/Pages/AMEI-Pioneer-Fellows-embark-on-teaching-excellencejourney.aspx.
[85]	http://condor.depaul.edu/tla/Assessment/AssessmentMethodology.html 2001-2012 DePaul University 1 E. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604 \| 312-362-8000.
[86]	Shah C, Parmar D, Mehta H. Perceptions of faculty about student-centered curriculum. Arch Med Health Sci 2014;2:74-9.
[87]	Banta, T. W. and Blaich, C. (2011) Closing the Assessment Loop. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 43: 1, 22-27.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ahmed M. S. Hegazy, Liaqat Minhas. (2015). Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy, 1(3), 52-63. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ahmed M. S. Hegazy; Liaqat Minhas. Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes. Int. J. Clin. Dev. Anat. 2015, 1(3), 52-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ahmed M. S. Hegazy, Liaqat Minhas. Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes. Int J Clin Dev Anat. 2015;1(3):52-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11,
  author = {Ahmed M. S. Hegazy and Liaqat Minhas},
  title = {Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes},
  journal = {International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy},
  volume = {1},
  number = {3},
  pages = {52-63},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijcda.20150103.11},
  abstract = {Doctors without anatomy are like a blind that deceives the road in the desert. Traditionalists perceive a decline in Anatomy knowledge and attribute it to the modern methods of teaching and learning. Reformers point to evidence that modern approaches offer equivalent results in assessment when compared to traditional courses. It seems that there are three aspects that need to be resolved: when, how much, and how to teach anatomy. In this study we reviewed more than 80 articles to conclude some guidelines which can help in improving anatomy learning outcomes in different medical curricula. Conclusions: We concluded that the challenge should not be to determine supremacy of one methodology over another but to maximize the learning benefit available from the different methods. In any model of medical curricula, a professional team of medical anatomists have to share in all the steps of curriculum building, the assessment tools and the final evaluation till the approval of the curriculum to: 1- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are chronologically arranged and sufficiently covered in a suitable time and methodology without inflation of the curriculum by more sophisticated details which taught only for the postgraduate students and medical anatomists. 2- Prevent any restriction of important basic knowledge which will not be covered later on and will affect the physician medical practice. 3- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are demonstrated with their clinical application without the sophisticated details of the clinical points which will be taught in details in the clinical years},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes
AU  - Ahmed M. S. Hegazy
AU  - Liaqat Minhas
Y1  - 2015/07/28
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11
T2  - International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy
JF  - International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy
JO  - International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy
SP  - 52
EP  - 63
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2469-8008
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11
AB  - Doctors without anatomy are like a blind that deceives the road in the desert. Traditionalists perceive a decline in Anatomy knowledge and attribute it to the modern methods of teaching and learning. Reformers point to evidence that modern approaches offer equivalent results in assessment when compared to traditional courses. It seems that there are three aspects that need to be resolved: when, how much, and how to teach anatomy. In this study we reviewed more than 80 articles to conclude some guidelines which can help in improving anatomy learning outcomes in different medical curricula. Conclusions: We concluded that the challenge should not be to determine supremacy of one methodology over another but to maximize the learning benefit available from the different methods. In any model of medical curricula, a professional team of medical anatomists have to share in all the steps of curriculum building, the assessment tools and the final evaluation till the approval of the curriculum to: 1- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are chronologically arranged and sufficiently covered in a suitable time and methodology without inflation of the curriculum by more sophisticated details which taught only for the postgraduate students and medical anatomists. 2- Prevent any restriction of important basic knowledge which will not be covered later on and will affect the physician medical practice. 3- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are demonstrated with their clinical application without the sophisticated details of the clinical points which will be taught in details in the clinical years
VL  - 1
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Ahmed M. S. Hegazy

Anatomy Department, Benha Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha City, Egypt
Liaqat Minhas

Anatomy Department, Faculty of Medicine, Northern Border University (NBU), Arar City, Saudi Arabia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Ahmed M. S. Hegazy, Liaqat Minhas. (2015). Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy, 1(3), 52-63. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Ahmed M. S. Hegazy; Liaqat Minhas. Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes. Int. J. Clin. Dev. Anat. 2015, 1(3), 52-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Ahmed M. S. Hegazy, Liaqat Minhas. Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes. Int J Clin Dev Anat. 2015;1(3):52-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11,
  author = {Ahmed M. S. Hegazy and Liaqat Minhas},
  title = {Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes},
  journal = {International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy},
  volume = {1},
  number = {3},
  pages = {52-63},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijcda.20150103.11},
  abstract = {Doctors without anatomy are like a blind that deceives the road in the desert. Traditionalists perceive a decline in Anatomy knowledge and attribute it to the modern methods of teaching and learning. Reformers point to evidence that modern approaches offer equivalent results in assessment when compared to traditional courses. It seems that there are three aspects that need to be resolved: when, how much, and how to teach anatomy. In this study we reviewed more than 80 articles to conclude some guidelines which can help in improving anatomy learning outcomes in different medical curricula. Conclusions: We concluded that the challenge should not be to determine supremacy of one methodology over another but to maximize the learning benefit available from the different methods. In any model of medical curricula, a professional team of medical anatomists have to share in all the steps of curriculum building, the assessment tools and the final evaluation till the approval of the curriculum to: 1- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are chronologically arranged and sufficiently covered in a suitable time and methodology without inflation of the curriculum by more sophisticated details which taught only for the postgraduate students and medical anatomists. 2- Prevent any restriction of important basic knowledge which will not be covered later on and will affect the physician medical practice. 3- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are demonstrated with their clinical application without the sophisticated details of the clinical points which will be taught in details in the clinical years},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Reflection of the Type of Medical Curriculum on Its Anatomy Content: Trial to Improve the Anatomy Learning Outcomes
AU  - Ahmed M. S. Hegazy
AU  - Liaqat Minhas
Y1  - 2015/07/28
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11
T2  - International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy
JF  - International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy
JO  - International Journal of Clinical and Developmental Anatomy
SP  - 52
EP  - 63
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2469-8008
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcda.20150103.11
AB  - Doctors without anatomy are like a blind that deceives the road in the desert. Traditionalists perceive a decline in Anatomy knowledge and attribute it to the modern methods of teaching and learning. Reformers point to evidence that modern approaches offer equivalent results in assessment when compared to traditional courses. It seems that there are three aspects that need to be resolved: when, how much, and how to teach anatomy. In this study we reviewed more than 80 articles to conclude some guidelines which can help in improving anatomy learning outcomes in different medical curricula. Conclusions: We concluded that the challenge should not be to determine supremacy of one methodology over another but to maximize the learning benefit available from the different methods. In any model of medical curricula, a professional team of medical anatomists have to share in all the steps of curriculum building, the assessment tools and the final evaluation till the approval of the curriculum to: 1- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are chronologically arranged and sufficiently covered in a suitable time and methodology without inflation of the curriculum by more sophisticated details which taught only for the postgraduate students and medical anatomists. 2- Prevent any restriction of important basic knowledge which will not be covered later on and will affect the physician medical practice. 3- Ensure that all the basic anatomical objectives are demonstrated with their clinical application without the sophisticated details of the clinical points which will be taught in details in the clinical years
VL  - 1
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download