Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Two groups of medical students (traditional and experimental), who had studied the gross anatomy of the lower limb by different methods (by dissection and from prosections, respectively) 5 years earlier, were re-assessed without warning. The objective was to determine whether or not the learning mode had any implications for the subsequent recall of the material studied. Three tests were administered: a 100-item two-choice theory paper, a practical test consisting of 18 time stations with specimen-based questions, and a standardized oral examination. Both qualitative and quantitative assessments were made in the practical and oral examinations. Although the numerical scores gained by both groups in the practical test were statistically similar, the incidence of random guesswork was significantly less among students on the experimental program. The same group was also adjudged to have performed better in the oral examination by two of the investigators who were blind to the group affiliations of the students. The results suggest that on testing 5 years after a practical learning experience in gross anatomy, the numerical scores gained by students who had studied from prosections were similar to those of their peers who had carried out dissections but that, by some qualitative considerations, the recall ability of the non-dissecting students was superior. Furthermore, the program of study from prosections lasted only 74% of the duration of the dissection course and is thus more efficient. The results recommend the program to institutions faced with unfavorable student-to-cadver ratios. The time it liberates may be dedicated to such other imaginative pedagogical purposes as autonomous student learning, clinical demonstrations, and problem-solving team exercises.
Nnodim et al. (Mon,) studied this question.