30. Undergraduates Studying Cadaveric Prosections in Class Exhibited More Effective Learning of Fundamental Gross Anatomy Than Those Performing Cadaveric Dissections.

Clicks: 10
ID: 330465
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #758 of 847 articles by views in italian journal of animal science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 847 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background: Learning anatomical structures and concepts by dissecting cadavers is a staple in a laboratory classroom. Student-led dissections offer hands-on learning opportunities but require substantial class time and supplies. Prosections are cadaveric displays prepared by experts before class. These reduce costs, resources, and class time but are generally considered less hands-on. The comparative benefits of each instructional methodology on student knowledge retention and perception are an emerging andragogical topic. Objective: This study sought to investigate the effectiveness of using cadaveric prosections or dissections in a sophomore-level undergraduate anatomy course on student performance, knowledge retention, and perception. Methods: Two cohorts of undergraduate students enrolled in Animal Science 243–Fundamental Animal Anatomy at the University of Nebraska completed weekly course units that included either cadaveric prosection (n = 18) or dissection (n = 18) of fetal pigs to teach a specific anatomical topic. To assess learning, students individually completed a practical quiz for each anatomical unit with questions at Bloom’s taxonomy levels 1–3. To assess knowledge retention, students additionally completed midterm and final exams that contained practical and conceptual questions. The first half of the semester included muscular, digestive, and respiratory units. The second half included cardiovascular, renal, and nervous units. To assess perception, students completed anonymous weekly surveys and an end-of-semester survey that utilized Likert Scale and open-ended questions. Results: Practical quiz grades did not differ between methods for most units. For the nervous system quiz, however, prosection students (99.4±2.2%) scored almost a letter grade better (P < 0.01) than dissection students (91.3±4.8%). For the muscle system, which was perceived as the most challenging unit, prosection students scored almost a letter grade better (P < 0.01) on mid-term practical questions (90.1±4.0% vs 82.3±4.6%) and more than a letter grade better (P < 0.01) on the final exam (72.3±5.8% vs 59.6±5.9%) than dissection students. Scores on midterm and final practical questions did not differ between methods for other units. However, final exam scores for all (practical+conceptual) questions over digestive and nervous systems were improved (P < 0.01) for prosection students. Likewise, midterm scores for all questions over the muscle system tended to be better (P < 0.10) for prosection students. Students self-selecting hands-on roles (dissector/manipulator, assistant) with the cadaver scored higher (P < 0.01) than those selecting hands-off roles (observer, non-participant) for respiratory and renal final exam questions but scored lower (P < 0.05) on cardiovascular and muscular final exam questions. Conclusion: These results indicate that using cadaveric prosections for teaching gross anatomy is as effective or more effective than traditional cadaveric dissections. Although students indicated favoring hands-on experiences, scores were not always improved for those in the interactive roles. Together, these findings show that students learned and retained knowledge from both teaching modalities, but cadaveric prosections led to better learning outcomes for several topics.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214758520 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Elizabeth E. Rodgers, T Schmidt, Melanie R White, Brooke L Parrish, Shelley A. Curry, Ashley A. Hahn, Dustin T Yates
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal italian journal of animal science
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jas/skag272.320
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skag272.320
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.