Comparison of Teaching Aids and Learning Styles in Anatomy: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical and Dental Students: Anatomy Teaching Aids & Learning Styles

Amrat ijaz; Aysha Saleem; Raafea Tafweez; Zahra Haider

doi:10.70384/jlmdc.v3i01.100

Authors

Amrat ijaz Azra Naheed Dental College, Superior University-Lahore
Aysha Saleem Azra Naheed Medical College, Superior University, Lahore.
Raafea Tafweez Azra Naheed Medical College, Superior University, Lahore.
Zahra Haider Azra Naheed Medical College, Superior University, Lahore.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70384/jlmdc.v3i01.100

Keywords:

Anatomy, Learning, Students, Perception

Abstract

Background: Anatomy education has evolved significantly, incorporating multimodal teaching approaches to balance traditional cadaveric dissections with emerging technological tools.

Objective: To assess students' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of anatomical teaching aids and tools like anatomage table, plastic models and cadaveric specimens in facilitating their learning and to explore students' perspectives on their preferred learning styles.

Methodology: This cross-sectional study was conducted via a questionnaire distributed among first- and second-year MBBS students and first-year BDS students at Azra Naheed Medical and Dental College. All data was processed using SPSS v26.0. Descriptive statistics including mean and standard deviation were calculated for effectiveness rating scores. One-way ANOVA test was used to compare effectiveness rating scores of anatomical learning resources for soft tissue across different learning styles. P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: Plastic models were the most highly rated learning resource for both soft tissue and bone anatomy, with most participants rating them as Excellent (52.1% for soft tissue, 51.1% for bone) and Good (37.9% for soft tissue, 40.5% for bone). Similarly, plastic models were the preferred time-saving resource, while anatomage was perceived as less efficient than other methods. The most preferred learning style was Reading/Writing (41.1%), followed by Visual (24.7%), Kinesthetic (24.2%), and Auditory (10.0%).

Conclusion: It was concluded that plastic models were perceived as the most effective resource for anatomy learning, primarily due to their time efficiency and ease of use. Reading/writing was identified as the predominant learning style among students, highlighting the importance of aligning teaching strategies with learner preferences.

References

1. Goubar T, Larach J, Hindmarch J, Bownes S, Sinha S. A pragmatic approach to effective anatomy teaching and learning to medical students: a ten-year experience using evidence-based principles. MedEdPublish. 2021;10:147.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2021.000147.1

2. Osorio-Toro S, Rodríguez-Campo A, Ramirez-Malule H. Bibliometric analysis of global research output on teaching and learning of human anatomy. Int J Morphol. 2022;40(3):789-797.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022022000300789

3. Bork F, Lehner A, Eck U, Navab N, Waschke J, Kugelmann D. The effectiveness of collaborative augmented reality in gross anatomy teaching: a quantitative and qualitative pilot study. Anat Sci Educ. 2021;14(5):590-604.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2016

4. Biswas S, Thosar NR, Srimani P. Self-directed learning versus traditional teaching in learning gross anatomy among first-year medical students: a comparative study. Cureus. 2024;16(8):e66542.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.66542

5. Asante EA, Maalman RS, Ali MA, Donkor YO, Korpisah JK. Perception and attitude of medical students towards cadaveric dissection in anatomical science education. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2021;31(4):677-686.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v31i4.3

6. Onigbinde OA, Chia T, Oyeniran OI, Ajagbe AO. The place of cadaveric dissection in post-COVID-19 anatomy education. Morphologie. 2021;105(351):259-266.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.morpho.2020.12.004

7. Seth V, Upadhyaya P, Ahmad M, Moghe V. PowerPoint or chalk and talk: perceptions of medical students versus dental students in a medical college in India. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2010;1:11-16.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S12154

8. Naqvi SH, Mobasher F, Afzal MA, Umair M, Kohli AN, Bukhari MH. Effectiveness of teaching methods in a medical institute: perceptions of medical students to teaching aids. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013;63(7):859-864.

PMID: 23901709

9. Pereira JA, Pleguezuelos E, Merí A, Molina Ros A, Molina-Tomás MC, Masdeu C. Effectiveness of using blended learning strategies for teaching and learning human anatomy. Med Educ. 2007;41(2):189-195.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02672.x

10. Hafez SA. Design for assessment of dissection in anatomy laboratory based on group identification of structures and peer evaluation. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(6):1045-1059.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2143

11. Alghamdi MA, Bu Saeed R, Fudhah W, Alqarni D, Albarzan S, Alamoudi S, et al. Perceptions of medical students regarding methods of teaching human anatomy. Cogent Educ. 2024;11(1):2340836.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2340836

12. Abdullah E, Lone M, Cray JJ, Dvoracek P, Balta JY. Medical students' opinions of anatomy teaching resources and their role in achieving learning outcomes. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31(6):1903-1910.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01436-2

13. Qamar K, Ahmad A, Ashar A. Comparison of learning anatomy with cadaveric dissection and plastic models by medical students. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2014;64(2):219-224.

14. Azer SA, Azer S. 3D anatomy models and impact on learning: a review of the quality of the literature. Health Prof Educ. 2016;2(2):80-98.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.05.002

15. Almulhem MA, Almulhem JA. Evaluation of problem-based learning implementation in a college of medicine, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional comparative study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):311.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03347-1

16. Koh ZJ, Yeow M, Srinivasan DK, Ng YK, Ponnamperuma GG, Chong CS. A randomized trial comparing cadaveric dissection and examination of prosections as applied surgical anatomy teaching pedagogies. Anat Sci Educ. 2023;16(1):57-70.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2166

17. Lackey-Cornelison WL, Bauler LD, Smith J. A comparison of the effectiveness of dissection and prosection on short-term anatomic knowledge retention in a reciprocal peer-teaching program. Adv Physiol Educ. 2020;44(2):239-246.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00031.2020

18. Burgess AW, Luscombe GM, Ramsey-Stewart G. An intensive anatomy by whole-body dissection elective: a longitudinal study. Clin Anat. 2022;35(5):550-559.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23861

19. Tan L, Wang Z, Jiang H, Han B, Tang J, Kang C, Zhang N, Xu Y. Full color 3D printing of anatomical models. Clin Anat. 2022;35(5):598-608.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23875

20. Alfarsi W, Elaghoury AH, Kore SE. Preferred learning styles and teaching methods among medical students: a cross-sectional study. Cureus. 2023;15(10):e46875.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.46875

21. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: a critical review. Ann Anat. 2016;208:151-157.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2016.02.010

22. Verma S, Sharma U. Alternatives to cadaveric dissection in medical education: an overview. Int J Adv Med Health Res. 2025;12(1):12-22.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijamr.ijamr_316_24

23. Suharto MI, Hayati T, Hanifah H, Mozart M. Effectiveness of cadaver compared to plastination as anatomy learning media: medical student perspective. Althea Med J. 2025;12(2):140-146.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.15850/amj.v12n2.3790

24. Fraher JP, Evans DJ. Training tomorrow's anatomists today: a partnership approach. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(3):119-125.

Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.81