FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Anatomical sciences education2024; 17(3); 506-513; doi: 10.1002/ase.2392

Of mice (dogs, horses, sheep) and men: A novel comparative anatomy dissection course in a United Kingdom university.

Abstract: At the University of Bristol, we established a novel dissection course to complement our anatomy degree. Students enrolled in this undergraduate course are trained as comparative anatomists, with equal time given to both human and veterinary anatomy. Historically, students opted to dissect either human or veterinary donors as part of the course. To fully reflect the comparative nature of the degree, the dissection course was redesigned so students could dissect both human and veterinary specimens as part of the same course. This facilitated a wide-ranging experience of anatomy, encouraging detailed knowledge of a multitude of species and allowing for multifaceted anatomy graduates to be ready for employment in a wide and competitive job market. Across three iterations of the amended version of the course, median marks ranged from 58.7% to 62.0%, with between 22 and 39 students enrolled. In comparison to the course prior to the introduction of the change, median marks ranged from 59.8% to 62.8%, with between 16 and 24 students enrolled. There was no significant difference between marks before or after the introduction of the concurrently comparative aspect. This paper describes the course, with learning materials and assessments considered, along with some reflection on its value. The course offers benefits to students by widening their perspective on anatomical knowledge and making them more equipped for the job market. It also broadens their understanding of form-function relationships. However, student feedback implied that having the choice between human or veterinary dissection was preferable, and this may outweigh the perceived benefits of the course.
© 2024 The Authors. Anatomical Sciences Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for Anatomy.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-02-05 PubMed ID: 38317576DOI: 10.1002/ase.2392Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Review

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Objective Overview

  • This study describes a newly designed comparative anatomy dissection course at the University of Bristol that integrates both human and veterinary anatomy for undergraduate students, aiming to broaden their anatomical knowledge and enhance job market readiness.
  • It evaluates the impact of this course redesign on student performance and perspectives, finding no significant difference in marks but some mixed feedback regarding the course format.

Introduction and Course Rationale

  • The University of Bristol runs an undergraduate anatomy degree focusing on training students as comparative anatomists.
  • Previously, students chose either to dissect human or veterinary specimens separately in the course.
  • The course was redesigned to allow students to dissect both human and veterinary specimens within the same course, reflecting the comparative nature of the degree more fully.
  • The goal was to provide students with broader anatomical experience, deeper knowledge of multiple species, and better preparation for a competitive and diverse job market.

Course Design and Implementation

  • The redesigned course allocates equal time to both human and veterinary anatomy dissections.
  • Students engage in hands-on dissection of multiple species, including humans, dogs, horses, and sheep.
  • The course includes comprehensive learning materials and tailored assessments to support this comparative approach.
  • The approach encourages understanding of anatomical form-function relationships across species, enriching students’ conceptual grasp.

Evaluation of Course Outcomes

  • Across three course iterations with the new format, median student marks ranged from 58.7% to 62.0%, with 22 to 39 students enrolled each time.
  • In comparison, prior to the redesign, median marks ranged from 59.8% to 62.8%, with 16 to 24 students enrolled.
  • Statistical analysis indicated no significant difference in academic performance before and after the introduction of the combined dissection approach.
  • This suggests the redesign did not negatively or positively affect examination results but maintained academic standards.

Student Feedback and Reflections

  • Students reportedly valued the broader perspective on anatomy and the increased exposure to different species.
  • The course enhanced understanding of anatomical similarities and differences, aiding deeper learning of form and function.
  • Despite these benefits, some students preferred having the option to choose only human or only veterinary dissection, as was the case previously.
  • The preference for choice may outweigh the advantages of the integrated course design for some students.

Conclusion and Educational Impact

  • The novel comparative dissection course successfully introduces cross-species anatomical training, aligning with the goals of producing versatile anatomy graduates.
  • It broadens students’ expertise and potentially improves their employability by equipping them to work with a diverse range of species.
  • Maintaining student choice or addressing their preferences may be important for future course iterations to optimize engagement and satisfaction.
  • The study provides a valuable model for other institutions aiming to combine human and veterinary anatomy education effectively.

Cite This Article

APA
Johnson CI, Hyde LE, Cornwall T, Spear M. (2024). Of mice (dogs, horses, sheep) and men: A novel comparative anatomy dissection course in a United Kingdom university. Anat Sci Educ, 17(3), 506-513. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2392

Publication

Anatomical sciences education
ISSN: 1935-9780
NlmUniqueID: 101392205
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 17
Issue: 3
Pages: 506-513

Researcher Affiliations

Johnson, Craig I
  • School of Anatomy, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Hyde, Lucy E
  • School of Anatomy, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Cornwall, Thomas
  • School of Anatomy, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Spear, Michelle
  • School of Anatomy, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

MeSH Terms

  • Male
  • Humans
  • Dogs
  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Mice
  • Sheep
  • Anatomy / education
  • Anatomy, Comparative / education
  • Universities
  • Curriculum
  • Dissection / education
  • Education, Medical, Undergraduate / methods
  • Students, Medical
  • Cadaver

References

This article includes 35 references
  1. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: a critical review.. Ann Anat 2016;208:151–157.
  2. Leung BC, Williams M, Horton C, Cosker TD. Modernising anatomy teaching: which resources do students rely on?. J Med Educ Curric Dev 2020;7:2382120520955156.
  3. Williams SR, Thompson KL, Notebaert AJ, Sinning AR. Prosection or dissection: which is best for teaching the anatomy of the hand and foot?. Anat Sci Educ 2019;12:173–180.
  4. Ghosh SK. Cadaveric dissection as an educational tool for anatomical sciences in the 21st century.. Anat Sci Educ 2017;10:286–299.
  5. McDaniel KG, Brown T, Radford CC, McDermott CH, van Houten T, Katz ME. Anatomy as a model environment for acquiring professional competencies in medicine: experiences at Harvard Medical School.. Anat Sci Educ 2021;14:241–251.
  6. Longhurst GJ, Stone DM, Dulohery K, Scully D, Campbell T, Smith CF. Strength, weakness, opportunity, threat (SWOT) analysis of the adaptations to anatomical education in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in response to the Covid‐19 pandemic.. Anat Sci Educ 2020;13:301–311.
  7. Johnson CI, Hyde LE, Cornwall T, Ryan M, Zealley E, Sparey K. Collaborative, two‐directional live streaming to deliver hands‐on dissection experience during the COVID‐19 lockdown.. In: Varsou O, Rea PM, Welsh M, editors. Biomedical visualisation: volume 14—COVID‐19 technology and visualisation adaptations for biomedical teaching. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023. p. 95–112.
  8. Zoom Video Communications Inc. Zoom. 2022.
  9. Bloom BS, Krathwohl DR, Masia BS. Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals: cognitive domain Handbook 1.. New York: Longman; 1984.
  10. Gibbs G. Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods.. London: FEU; 1988.
  11. Kolbe DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice‐Hall; 1984.
  12. Essen‐Fishman LV. The impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on 2020/21 student data.. In: HESA, editor. HESA; 2022.
  13. Cosans CE, Frampton M. History of comparative anatomy.. In: Encyclopedia of life sciences; 2015. p. 1–8.
  14. von Staden H. Anatomy as rhetoric: Galen on dissection and persuasion.. J Hist Med Allied Sci 1995;50:47–66.
  15. Bhattacharjee S, Ceri Davies D, Holland JC, Holmes JM, Kilroy D, McGonnell IM. On the importance of integrating comparative anatomy and one health perspectives in anatomy education.. J Anat 2022;240:429–446.
  16. Atlas RM. One Health: its origins and future.. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2013;365:1–13.
    doi: 10.1007/82_2012_223google scholar: lookup
  17. Carroll SB. Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens.. Nature 2003;422:849–857.
  18. de Schotten MT, Dell'Acqua F, Valabregue R, Catani M. Monkey to human comparative anatomy of the frontal lobe association tracts.. Cortex 2012;48:82–96.
  19. Dobzhansky T. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.. Am Biol Teach 2013;75:87–91.
  20. Zangerl R. The methods of comparative anatomy and its contribution to the study of evolution.. Evolution 1948;2:351–374.
  21. Klaassen RG. Interdisciplinary education: a case study.. Eur J Eng Educ 2018;43:842–859.
  22. Wilson AB, Notebaert AJ, Schaefer AF, Moxham BJ, Stephens S, Mueller C. A look at the anatomy educator job market: anatomists remain in short supply.. Anat Sci Educ 2020;13:91–101.
  23. Banstola A, Reynolds JN. The sheep as a large animal model for the investigation and treatment of human disorders.. Biology 2022;11:1251.
  24. Johnson CI, Argyle DJ, Clements DN. In vitro models for the study of osteoarthritis.. Vet J 2016;209:40–49.
  25. Lossi L. Anatomical features for an adequate choice of the experimental animal model in biomedicine: III. Ferret, goat, sheep, and horse.. Ann Anat 2022;244:151978.
  26. Ribitsch I, Baptista PM, Lange‐Consiglio A, Melotti L, Patruno M, Jenner F. Large animal models in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering: to do or not to do.. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2020;8:972.
  27. Woodrow JS, Sheats MK, Cooper B, Bayless R. Asthma: the use of animal models and their translational utility.. Cell 2023;12:1091.
  28. Holley KA. Interdisciplinary curriculum and learning in higher education.. .
  29. Menken S, Keestra M, Rutting L, Post G, de Roo M, Blad S. An introduction to interdisciplinary research: theory and practice.. .
  30. White P, Deevy C. Designing an interdisciplinary research culture in higher education: a case study.. Interchange 2020;51:499–515.
  31. Kahu ER. Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud High Educ 2013;38:758–773.
  32. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 2000;25:54–67.
  33. Skinner E, Furrer C, Marchand G, Kindermann T. Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: part of a larger motivational dynamic?. J Educ Psychol 2008;100:765–781.
  34. Hopkins G. Enabling student choice of assessment style: considerations and practicalities. In: EDULEARN23 proceedings, 15th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. Palma, Spain: IATED; 2023. p. 7373–7382.
  35. O'Neill G. Student choice of assessment methods: how can this approach become more mainstream and equitable?. In: Ajjawi R, Tai J, Boud D, de St Jorre TJ, editros. Assessment for inclusion in higher education. London: Routledge; 2022. p. 199–210.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,367 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.