Geçmişten Geleceğe Anatomi Eğitimi

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 3, 600 - 605, 01.09.2022

Engin Çiftcioğlu Zeynep Altuntaş Ezgi Çiftcioğlu

https://doi.org/10.19127/bshealthscience.1132265

Abstract

Tıp ve sağlık uygulamalarının gelecekte, yeni nesil sağlık profesyonellerini eğitme, yetiştirme ve değerlendirme şeklimize farklı bir yaklaşım gerektirecek temel değişikliklere uğraması muhtemeldir. Doktorlar için insan vücudu günlük olarak araştırma ve müdahalenin odak noktasıdır; bu nedenle anatomi çalışması bir şekilde güvenli tıbbi uygulama için gerekli olmaya devam edecektir. Güvenli bir şekilde pratik yapmak ve iletişim kurmak için çekirdek anatomi bilgisinin tüm doktorlar tarafından özümsenmesi gerekmektedir. Anatomi uzmanları, anatominin geçmişine ve bugününe bakarak, mesleğin nerede olduğuna ve 21. yüzyıl tıp eğitiminin ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için şimdi nereye gitmesi gerektiğine dair vizyoner bir bakışa sahip olmalıdırlar. Anatomi, lisansüstü uzmanlık ve cerrahi eğitimde umut verici bir geleceğe sahiptir. Ayrıntılı bilgi klinik olarak ilgili olduğu, geleceğin uzmanlarının güvenli ve doğru bir şekilde uygulama yapmasına ve ayrıca gelecekteki klinik gelişmeler için güçlü bir temel sağlamasına olanak tanıdığı durumlarda uzmanlık eğitimine entegre edilmelidir.

Keywords

Anatomi eğitimi, Aktif öğrenme, Tıp eğitimi

Anatomy Education from the Past to the Future

Abstract

Medical and healthcare practice is likely to see fundamental changes in the future that will require a different approach to the way in which we educate, train, and assess the next generation of healthcare professionals. For doctors, the human body is the focus of investigation and intervention on a Daily basis; for this reason, the study of anatomy in some form will continue to be essential to safe medical practice. Anatomy professionals, by looking at anatomy’s past and present, must have a visionary view of where the profession has been and where it needs to go to meet the needs of 21st century medical education. Anatomy has a promising future in postgraduate specialist and surgical training. Detailed knowledge should be integrated into specialist training when it is clinically relevant allowing specialists of the future to practice safely and accurately and also to provide a strong base for future clinical developments.

Keywords

Anatomy education, Active learning, Medical education

References

• Albanese MA, Mitchell S. 1993. Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad Med, 68: 52–81.
• Bird JB, Olvet DM, Willey JM, Brenner J. 2019. Patients don’t come with multiple choice options: Essay-based assessment in UME. Med Educ Online, 24: 1649959.
• Boud D. 1990. Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Stud Des Educ, 5: 101–111.
• Brenner E, Chirculescu AR, Reblet C, Smith C. 2015. Assessment in anatomy. Eur J Anat, 19: 105–124.
• Carvalho L, Goodyear P. 2014. The architecture of productive learning networks. Routledge, 1st ed., Abingdon, Oxon, UK, pp. 314.
• Choudhury B, Freemont A. 2017. Assessment of anatomical knowledge: Approaches taken by higher education institutions. Clin Anat, 30: 290–299.
• Craig S, Tait N, Boers D, McAndrew D. 2010. Review of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools. ANZ J Surg, 80: 212–216.
• Dannefer EF. 2013. Beyond assessment of learning toward assessment for learning: Educating tomorrow’s physicians. Med Teach, 35: 560–563.
• Davis E, Palincsar AS, Arias AM, Bismack AS, Marulis L, Iwashyna S. 2014. Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harv Educ Rev, 84: 24–52. de Bruin AB, Schmidt HG, Rikers RM. 2005. The role of basic science knowledge and clinical knowledge in diagnostic reasoning: A structural equation modeling approach. Acad Med, 80: 765–773.
• Dichtelmiller ML. 2011. The power of assessment: transforming teaching and learning. Teaching Strategies, 1st ed., Bethesda, Maryland, USA, pp. 310.
• Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. 2009. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: The winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ, 2: 253–259.
• Elizondo-Omaña, RE, Morales-Gómez, JA, Morquecho-Espinoza, O, Hinojosa-Amaya, JM, Villarreal-Silva, EE, García-Rodríguez, Mde L, Guzmán-López S. 2010. Teaching skills to promote clinical reasoning in early basic science courses. Anat Sci Educ, 3: 267–271.
• Entwistle N, McCune V, Walker P. 2001. Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analytical abstractions and everyday experience. In: Sternberg RJ, Zhang LF, editors. Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1st ed., Mahwah, New Jersey, USA, pp. 103–136.
• Estai M, Bunt S. 2016. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Ann Anat, 208: 151–157.
• Estai M, Bunt S. 2016. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Ann Anat, 208: 151–157.
• Evans DJ, Bay BH, Wilson TD, Smith CF, Lachman N, Pawlina W. 2020. Going virtual to support anatomy education: A STOPGAP in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ, 13: 279–283.
• Evans DJ, Watt DJ. 2005. Provision of anatomical teaching in a new British medical school: Getting the right mix. Anat Rec, 284B: 22–27.
• Evans DJ, Zeun P, Stanier RA. 2014. Motivating student learning using a formative assessment journey. J Anat, 224: 296–303.
• Gore JM, Griffiths T, Ladwig JG. 2004. Towards better teaching: Productive pedagogy as a framework for teacher education. Teach Teach Educ, 20: 375–387.
• Gregory JK, Lachman N, Camp CL, Chen LP, Pawlina W. 2009. Restructuring a basic science course for core competencies: An example from anatomy teaching. Med Teach, 31: 855–861.
• Guimarães B, Dourado L, Tsisar S, Diniz JM, Madeira MD, Ferreira MA. 2017. Rethinking anatomy: How to overcome challenges of medical education’s evolution. Acta Med Port, 30: 134–140.
• Gulikers JT, Bastiaens TJ, Kirschner PA. 2004. A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educ Tech Res Dev, 52: 67–86.
• Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Schuwirth LWT, Wass V, van der Vleuten CP. 2017. Changing the culture of assessment: The dominance of the summative assessment paradigm. BMC Med Educ, 17: 73.
• Herrington J, Reeves TC, Oliver R. 2014. Authentic learning environments. In: Spector M, Merrill MD, Elen J, Bishop MJ, editors. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Springer Science+Business Media, 4th ed., New York, USA, pp. 401–412.
• Heylings DJ. 2002. Anatomy 1999-2000: The curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Educ, 36: 702–710.
• Hift RJ. 2014. Should essays and other "open-ended"- type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine? BMC Med Educ, 14: 249.
• Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR. 2010. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach, 32: 676–682.
• Irby DM, Cooke M, O’Brien BC. 2010. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med, 85: 220–227.
• Johnson EO, Charchanti AV, Troupis TG. 2012. Modernization of an anatomy class: From conceptualization to implementation. A case for integrated multimodal-multidisciplinary teaching. Anat Sci Educ, 5: 354–366.
• Klenowski V. 2009. Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assess Educ Princ Pol Pract, 16: 263–268.
• Lachman N, Pawlina W. 2006. Integrating professionalism in early medical education: The theory and application of reflective practice in the anatomy curriculum. Clin Anat, 19: 456–460.
• Longhurst GJ, Stone DM, Dulohery K, Scully D, Campbell T, Smith CF. 2020. 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, 13: 301–311.
• McBride JM, Drake RL. 2018. National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ, 11: 7–14.
• McKeown PP, Heylings DJ, Stevenson M, McKelvey KJ, Nixon JR, McCluskey DR. 2003. The impact of curricular change on medical students’ knowledge of anatomy. Med Educ, 37: 954–61.
• Miller SA, Perrotti W, Silverthorn DU, Dalley AF, Rarey KE. 2002. From college to clinic: Reasoning over memorization is key for understanding anatomy. Anat Rec, 269: 69–80.
• Palmer EJ, Devitt PG. 2007. Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: Modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper. BMC Med Educ, 7: 49.
• Pather N, Blyth P, Chapman JA, Dayal MR, Flack NA, Fogg QA, Green RA, Hulme AK, Johnson IP, Meyer AJ, Morley JW, Shortland PJ, Štrkalj G, Štrkalj M, Valter K, Webb AL, Woodley SJ, Lazarus MD. 2020. Forced disruption of anatomy education in Australia and New Zealand: An acute response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ, 13: 284–300.
• Pawlina W, Drake RL. 2016. Authentic learning in anatomy: A primer on pragmatism. Anat Sci Educ, 9: 5–7.
• Prince KJ, Scherpbier AJ, van Mameren H, Drukker J, van der Vleuten CP. 2005. Do studentshave sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy? Med Educ, 39: 326–332.
• PwC. 2017. Pricewaterhouse coopers. What doctor? Why AI and robotics will define new health. PricewaterhouseCoopers, 1st ed., London, UK, pp. 50.
• Rizzolo LJ, Rando WC, O’Brien MK, Haims AH, Abrahams JJ, Stewart WB. 2010. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ, 3: 109–120.
• Rockarts J, Brewer-Deluce D, Shali A, Mohialdin V, Wainman B. 2020. National survey on Canadian undergraduate medical programs: The decline of the anatomical sciences in Canadian medical education. Anat Sci Educ, 13: 381–389.
• Samarasekera DD, Ang ET, Gwee MC. 2020. Assessing anatomy as a basic medical science. In: Chan LK, Pawlina W, editors. Teaching anatomy: a practical guide. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2nd ed., Cham, Switzerland, pp. 393–404.
• Schmidt HG, Dauphinee WD, Patel VL. 1987. Comparing the effects of problem-based and conventional curricula in an international sample. J Med Educ, 62: 305–315.
• Schuwirth LW, Van der Vleuten CP. 2011. Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach, 33: 478–485.
• Schwab K. 2016. The fourth ındustrial revolution. Crown Business, 1st ed., New York, USA, pp. 192.
• Smith CF, Mathias H. 2007. An investigation into medical students’ approaches to anatomy learning in a systems-based prosection course. Clin Anat, 20: 843–848.
• Smith CF, Pawlina W. 2021. A journey like no other: Anatomy 2020! Anat Sci Educ, 14: 5–7.
• Stiggins R. 2007. Assessment for learning: An essential foundation of productive instruction. In: Reeves D, editor. Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning. Solution Tree Press, 1st ed., Bloomington, Indiana, USA pp. 59–78.
• Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. 2010. The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ, 3: 83–93.
• Thompson AR, O’Loughlin VD. 2015. The Blooming Anatomy Tool (BAT): A discipline-specific rubric for utilizing Bloom’s taxonomy in the design and evaluation of assessments in the anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ, 8: 493–501.
• Tracy SM, Marino GJ, Richo KM, Daly EM. 2000. The clinical achievement portfolio: An outcomes-based assessment project in nursing education. Nurse Educ, 25: 241–246.
• Turney BW, Gill J, Morris JF. 2001. Surgical trainees as anatomy demonstrators: revisited. Ann R Coll Surg Engl (Suppl), 83: 193–195.
• Verhoeven BH, Verwijnen GM, Scherpbier AJJA, Holdrinet RSG, Oeseburg B, Bulte JA. 1998. An analysis of progress test results of PBL and non-PBL students. Med Teacher, 20: 310–316.
• Vernon DT, Blake RL. 1993. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med, 68: 550–563.
• Vorstenbosch MA, Kooloos JG, Bolhuis SM, Laan RF. 2016. An investigation of anatomical competence in junior medical doctors. Anat Sci Educ, 9: 8–17.
• Waterston SW, Stewart IJ. 2005. Survey of clinicians’ attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat, 18: 380–384.
• Wiggins G. 1990. The case for authentic assessment. Pract Assess Res Eval, 2: 2.
• Wiggins G. 1998. Educative assessment: Designing assessments to ınform and ımprove student performance. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1st ed., San Francisco, USA, pp. 361.
• Woods NN. 2007. Science is fundamental: The role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Med Educ, 41: 1173–1177.