Academic journal article Journal of Allied Health

Correspondence

Academic journal article Journal of Allied Health

Correspondence

Article excerpt

To the Editor: The article by Elaine Bukowski (Assessment outcomes: computerized instruction in a human gross anatomy course. J Allied Health. 2002; 31:153-158) demonstrated that there is no significant difference in exam scores, performance on the PT state board licensure exams, and performance throughout the remainder of the PT curriculum based on whether or not the student had a cadaver or computerized experience for gross anatomy lab. The study was well designed and implemented, and the results were properly interpreted. This study and similar ones seem to have closed the door on the notion that students learn an anatomical knowledge base better with a cadaver experience.

The current allied health environment has serious concerns with saving money, getting on board with computer technology, and finding time in the curriculum in which to add new material. Since gross anatomy with a cadaver experience is time intensive and expensive, the removal or modification of cadaver anatomy has been a target for some time now to help solve the just mentioned concerns. There is no reason to think that this trend will not continue.

Is this something that we should be concerned about in allied health? If money, time, and resources are the real issues, then it should make no difference how the courses are taught since students learn at the same level. The one critical thing that this article does not take into account, and I know of none which do, is the measurement and evaluation of hands-on experience and the appreciation of the human body as outcomes. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.