Students’ perceptions of anatomy across the undergraduate problem-based learning medical curriculum: a phenomenographical study

BMC Medical Education

Cees PM van der Vleuten⁴  Albert JJA Scherpbier²  Inge WH Verheijen³  Andreas Herrler⁵  Anique BH de Bruin⁴  Esther M Bergman¹ 

[1] Department of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;Dean, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands;Medical Student, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;Department of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;Department of Anatomy & Embryology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

关键词: Problem based learning;    Learning;    Knowledge;    Education;    Curriculum;    Basic sciences;    Anatomy;   

Others  :  1138517
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-152

 received in 2013-07-08, accepted in 2013-11-15,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

To get insight in how theoretical knowledge is transformed into clinical skills, important information may arise from mapping the development of anatomical knowledge during the undergraduate medical curriculum. If we want to gain a better understanding of teaching and learning in anatomy, it may be pertinent to move beyond the question of how and consider also the what, why and when of anatomy education.

Methods

A purposive sample of 78 medical students from the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 6^th year of a PBL curriculum participated in 4 focus groups. Each group came together twice, and all meetings were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed with template analysis using a phenomenographical approach.

Results

Five major topics emerged and are described covering the students’ perceptions on their anatomy education and anatomical knowledge: 1) motivation to study anatomy, 2) the relevance of anatomical knowledge, 3) assessment of anatomical knowledge, 4) students’ (in)security about their anatomical knowledge and 5) the use of anatomical knowledge in clinical practice.

Conclusions

Results indicated that a PBL approach in itself was not enough to ensure adequate learning of anatomy, and support the hypothesis that educational principles like time-on-task and repetition, have a stronger impact on students’ perceived and actual anatomical knowledge than the educational approach underpinning a curriculum. For example, students state that repetitive studying of the subject increases retention of knowledge to a greater extent than stricter assessment, and teaching in context enhances motivation and transfer. Innovations in teaching and assessment, like spiral curriculum, teaching in context, teaching for transfer and assessment for learning (rewarding understanding and higher order cognitive skills), are required to improve anatomy education.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Bergman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fasel JH, Morel P, Gailloud P: A survival strategy for anatomy. Lancet 2005, 365(9461):754.
• [2]Raftery A: Anatomy teaching in the UK. Surgery 2006, 25(1):1-2.
• [3]Bergman E, de Goeij A: Basic sciences in problem-based learning. In Lessons from Problem-based Learning. Edited by Van Berkel H, Scherpbier A, Hillen H, van der Vleuten C. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010:57-65.
• [4]Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M: Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experiences from Linkoping. Sweden Med Teach 2002, 24(3):280-285.
• [5]Dolmans DH, De Grave W, Wolfhagen IH, van der Vleuten CP: Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ 2005, 39(7):732-741.
• [6]Colliver JA: Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: research and theory. Acad Med 2000, 75(3):259-266.
• [7]Newman M: A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of problem based learning. Newcastle: Learning & Teaching Subject Network for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine; 2003.
• [8]Vernon DT, Blake RL: Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med 1993, 68(7):550-563.
• [9]Adibi I, Hasani N, Ashoorioun V, Sadrearhami S, Monajemi AR: Integrating physical examination and trunk anatomy; a new course for second year medical students. Med Teach 2007, 29(9):975-977.
• [10]Alleyne T, Shirley A, Bennett C, Addae J, Walrond E, West S, Pinto Pereira L: Problem-based compared with traditional methods at the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of the West Indies: a model study. Med Teach 2002, 24(3):273-279.
• [11]Hinduja K, Samuel R, Mitchell S: Problem-based learning: is anatomy a casualty? Surgeon 2005, 3(2):84-87.
• [12]Prince KJ, van Mameren H, Hylkema N, Drukker J, Scherpbier AJ, van der Vleuten CP: Does problem-based learning lead to deficiencies in basic science knowledge? An empirical case on anatomy. Med Educ 2003, 37(1):15-21.
• [13]Prince KJ, Boshuizen HP, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ: Students’ opinions about their preparation for clinical practice. Med Educ 2005, 39(7):704-712.
• [14]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(3):326-332.
• [15]Bergman EM, Prince KJ, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ: How much anatomy is enough? Anat Sci Educ 2008, 1(4):184-188.
• [16]Bergman EM, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ: Why don’t they know enough about anatomy? A narrative review. Med Teach 2011, 33(5):403-409.
• [17]Mattick K, Regan De Bere S: From anatomical ‘competence’ to complex capability. The views and experiences of UK tutors on how we should teach anatomy to medical students. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2010, 15(4):573-585.
• [18]Aziz MA, McKenzie JC, Wilson JS, Cowie RJ, Ayeni SA, Dunn BK: The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. Anat Rec 2002, 269(1):20-32.
• [19]Older J: Anatomy: a must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon 2004, 2(2):79-90.
• [20]Winkelmann A: Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Med Educ 2007, 41(1):15-22.
• [21]Azer SA, Eizenberg N: Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat 2007, 29(2):173-180.
• [22]Wilhelmsson N, Dahlgren LO, Hult H, Scheja M, Lonka K, Josephson A: The anatomy of learning anatomy. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2010, 15(2):153-165.
• [23]Bunniss S, Kelly DR: Research paradigms in medical education research. Med Educ 2010, 44(4):358-366.
• [24]Illing J: Thinking about research: frameworks, ethics and scholarship. Edinburgh: ASME; 2007.
• [25]Marton F: Phenomenography - describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science 1981, 10:177-200.
• [26]Stenfors-Hayes T, Hult H, Dahlgren MA: A phenomenographic approach to research in medical education. Med Educ 2013, 47(3):261-270.
• [27]Willis K, Green J, Daly J, Williamson L, Bandyopadhyay M: Perils and possibilities: achieving best evidence from focus groups in public health research. Aust N Z J Public Health 2009, 33(2):131-136.
• [28]Diemers AD, Dolmans DHJM, Verwijnen GM, Heineman E, Scherpbier AJJA: Students’ opinions about the effects of preclinical patient contacts on their learning. Adv Health Sci Educ 2008, 13:633-647.
• [29]Van Berkel H, Scherpbier AJJA, Hillen H: Vleuten CPMvd (Eds.): Lessons from Problem-based Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
• [30]King N: Using Templates in the Thematic Analysis of Text. In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Edited by Cassell C, Symon G. London: Sage; 2004.
• [31]Moxham BJ, Plaisant O: Perception of medical students towards the clinical relevance of anatomy. Clin Anat 2007, 20(5):560-564.
• [32]Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL 3rd: Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ 2008, 42(10):959-966.
• [33]Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP: Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach 2011, 33(6):478-485.
• [34]Dammers J, Spencer J, Thomas M: Using real patients in problem-based learning: students’ comments on the value of using real, as opposed to paper cases, in a problem-based learning module in general practice. Med Educ 2001, 35(1):27-34.
• [35]Diemers AD, Dolmans DH, Van Santen M, Van Luijk SJ, Janssen-Noordman AM, Scherpbier AJ: Students’ perceptions of early patient encounters in a PBL curriculum: a first evaluation of the Maastricht experience. Med Teach 2007, 29(2–3):135-142.
• [36]Takkunen M, Turpeinen H, Viisanen H, Wigren HK, Aarnio M, Pitkaniemi J: Introduction of real patients into problem-based learning in preclinical first-year anatomy curriculum. Med Teach 2011, 33(10):854-856.
• [37]Ryan RM, Deci EL: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and New directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 2000, 25(1):54-67.
• [38]Harden RM, Stamper N: What is a spiral curriculum? Med Teach 1999, 21(2):141-143.
• [39]Mattick K, Knight L: High-quality learning: harder to achieve than we think? Med Educ 2007, 41(7):638-644.
• [40]Smith CF, Mathias HS: Medical students’ approaches to learning anatomy: students’ experiences and relations to the learning environment. Clin Anat 2010, 23(1):106-114.
• [41]Norman G: Anatomical mysteries. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2010, 15(2):149-151.
• [42]Pandey P, Zimitat C: Medical students’ learning of anatomy: memorisation, understanding and visualisation. Med Educ 2007, 41(1):7-14.
• [43]Entwistle NJ, Ramsden P: Understanding student learning. London: Croom-Helm; 1983.
• [44]Smith CF, Martinez-Alvarez C, McHanwell S: The context of learning anatomy: does it make a difference. J Anat 2013. doi:10.1111/joa.12089. Epub ahead of print
• [45]Miller SA, Perrotti W, Silverthorn DU, Dalley AF, Rarey KE: From college to clinic: reasoning over memorization is key for understanding anatomy. Anat Rec 2002, 269(2):69-80.
• [46]Scott TM: A case-based anatomy course. Med Educ 1994, 28(1):68-73.
• [47]Light D Jr: Uncertainty and control in professional training. J Health Soc Behav 1979, 20(4):310-322.
• [48]Fox RC: Medical Uncertainty Revisited. In Handbook of Social Studies in Health and Medicine. Edited by Albrecht GL, Fitzpatrick R, Scrimshaw SC. London: Sage; 2000:409-425.
• [49]Kitto S, Chestsers J, Villanueva E, Fox J: Normalising uncertainty in undergraduate clinical transition seminars. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Disciplinary J 2004, 6(1):37-51.
• [50]Bolander Laksov K, Lonka K, Josephson A: How do medical teachers address the problem of transfer? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008, 13(3):345-360.
• [51]Custers EJ: Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: a review study. Adv Health Sci Educ 2010, 15(1):109-128.
• [52]Custers EJ, Ten Cate OT: Very long-term retention of basic science knowledge in doctors after graduation. Med Educ 2011, 45(4):422-430.
• [53]Norman G: Teaching basic science to optimize transfer. Med Teach 2009, 31(9):807-811.
• [54]Chariker JH, Naaz F, Pani JR: Computer-based learning of neuroanatomy: a longitudinal study of learning, transfer, and retention. J Educ Psychol 2011, 103(1):19-31.