↓ Skip to main content

Dissection and dissection‐associated required experiences improve student performance in gross anatomy: Differences among quartiles

Overview of attention for article published in Anatomical Sciences Education, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Dissection and dissection‐associated required experiences improve student performance in gross anatomy: Differences among quartiles
Published in
Anatomical Sciences Education, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/ase.1574
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To promote student learning, educational strategies should provide multiple levels of engagement with the subject matter. This study investigated examination data from five first year medical gross anatomy class cohorts (692 students) to determine if enhanced student performance was correlated with learning through dissection in a course that used a rotating dissection schedule coupled with peer teaching and other associated experiences. When students performed two of five weekly dissections for a given unit, their average scores on both laboratory and written examinations tended to increase as compared to when they had completed only one week of dissection (P < 0.01). However, these performance gains differed across the class strata and were related to the amount of dissection completed. Students in the upper quartile (UQS) of the class benefited when they had dissected once (92.8%) or twice (92.4%), and these scores were significantly higher than those attained when learning from peers (90.3%, P < 0.01). Students in the lower quartile (LQS) benefited most from the dissection experiences, where practical examination performance was better (77.8% and 80.5%) than when these students learned material from their peers (73.7%, P < 0.01). Although UQS benefited from dissection, LQS benefited to a greater extent in both the practical and written examinations with dissection. Although limited, these data suggest that dissection, coupled with associated educational activities, is an effective pedagogical strategy for learning. Further investigation is required to evaluate the concomitant benefits of peer teaching that are associated with the dissection experience. Anat Sci Educ. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 19 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 20 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2015.
All research outputs
#16,021,917
of 24,577,646 outputs
Outputs from Anatomical Sciences Education
#473
of 707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,475
of 290,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anatomical Sciences Education
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,577,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.