Opinions of Medical Faculty Students about Anatomy Practical Education: A Survey Study

Year 2022, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 55 - 59, 01.01.2022

Sibel Ateşoğlu Karabaş Mehmet Demir Atila Yoldaş Mustafa Çiçek

https://doi.org/10.37990/medr.990866

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Aim: In our study, it was aimed to evaluate the opinions of students studying at Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University Faculty of Medicine about the current state of anatomy practical education.
Material and Method: A total of 64 students, 36 men and 28 women, were included in the study. In this cross-sectional, descriptive type study, students’ views on anatomy education were determined using a voluntary survey method. In the content of the survey, there were questions that questioned the demographic characteristics of the students, their thoughts about the practical education of anatomy they received, and questions that determined their ideas about the provision of models. In the answer to other questions, a likert-type scale of 5 was used consisting of the options “always”, “mostly”, “often”, “occasionally”, “never”. The data was analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 package program.
Results: The average age of 64 students participating in the study was 20.98± 1.10. Of these students, 33(51.6%) were in semester II and 31(48.4%) were in semester III. Students reported that the practical training in anatomy they received was moderate, that the model and cadaver should be used together in lessons, that training on the model was very effective in learning anatomy. In the results, it was observed that the variety of models available in our laboratory was sufficient, but due to the presence of classes, the number of models was not sufficient, it would be better to drop one model for every 1-5 people on the average.
Conclusion: Students were moderately satisfied with the learning practices within the scope of the anatomy practical course. With the support of Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University Research Projects Coordination Unit (Project no:2020/3-28A), thanks to the newly provided models, the reinforce laboratory allows students to better understand the lesson and learn the subjects they are having difficulty with. 

Keywords

Anatomy, model, laboratory, survey

Project Number

2020/3-28A

References

• 1. Gürpınar MA, Gürpınar E, Songur A, Vitrinel A. National core training program for undergraduate medical education. Ulusal ÇEP. 2014;31-6.
• 2. Ozan H. Ozan anatomy. 1nd edition. Klinisyen Medicine Press. Ankara, 2014;18.
• 3. Lachlan MCJC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: Ghost of the post, present and future. Med Educ. 2006;40:243-53.
• 4. Yıldırım M. Illustrated systematic anatomy. 1nd edition. Nobel Medicine Press. İstanbul, 2013;1-4.
• 5. Gürpınar E, Batı H, Tetik C. The determinate of learning styles of medical students. World of Medical Education. 2011;32:18-29.
• 6. Canbolat M, Şenol D. A potential source ın embalming and dissection education: health tourism. World of Medical Education. 2019;54:88-91.
• 7. Pelin C, Zağyapan R, Kürkçüoğlu A, İyem C. Anatomy education methods and its relationship with medical education systems. VII. Ulusal National Medical Education Congress, 2-5 May 2012. Ankara, Turkey, 155-156.
• 8. Gözil R, Özkan S, Bahçelioğlu M, et al, Phase II Students’ Evaluation of Anatomy Teaching at Gazi University Medical School. World of Medical Education. 2006;23:27-32.
• 9. Fresko B, Nasser F. Interpreting student ratings: Consultation, ınstructional modification, and attitudes towards course evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2001;27:291-305.
• 10. El-Hassan, K. Students’ ratings of ınstruction: Generalizability of findings. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 1995;21:411-29.
• 11. Schartel SA. Giving feedback-an integral part of education. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2012;26:77-87.
• 12. Karabilgin ÖS, Şahin H. Student Ratings in Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness and Educational Program. World of Medical Education. 2006;21:27-33.
• 13. Doğan Z, Uludağ Ö, Ateşoğlu S, et al. Opinions of Adıyaman University dental faculty students on ınteractive anatomy education. Sdü Journal of Healt. 2018;9(2):48-53.
• 14. Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll of Surg Engl. 2007;89:104-7.
• 15. Tuygar ŞF, Gülcen B. Evaluation of satisfaction levels and ıts associated variables for anatomy education ın medical students. World of Medical Education. 2015;42:5-14.
• 16. Çetkin M, Turhan B, Bahşi İ, Kervancıoğlu P. The opinions of medicine faculty students about anatomy education. Gaziantep Med J. 2016;22(2):82-8.
• 17. Uygur R, Çağlar V, Topçu B, et al. The Assessment of the Students’ Opinions about Anatomy Education. Int J Basic Clin Med. 2013;1(2): 94-106.
• 18. Acuner AM, Yalçın M, Ersoy M, et al. Evaluation of the teaching-learning process related to the anatomy course of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine. J Ankara Univ Fac Med. 1999;52(4):211-8.
• 19. Arı İ, Şendemir E. Student views on anatomy education. J Uludağ Univ Med Fac. 2003;29(2):11-4.