147 - Put to the Test: Comparing Learners Taught Using Physical Dissections vs. 3D Scans of Dissections

Poster Board Number: 147
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : Interactive 3D models have been shown to be an effective method to gain anatomical knowledge compared to traditional methods. Previous studies have shown that most students reported that 3D models were easier to study from and more enjoyable to use (Triepels et al. 2019). Our team created a database of 3D scanned dissections for students to use while studying Gross Anatomy. This study aimed to compare student success and preference of our resource compared to more traditional resources. Incoming first-year medical students were recruited to examine the effectiveness and preference of this resource. The study was conducted in four parts: a pre-test using physical dissections and images of 3D scanned dissections, a teaching session using physical dissections or interactive 3D scanned dissections, a post-test identical to the pre-test, and a post-study survey. The post-exam survey included background, Likert-scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree), multiple choice and slider type questions, in addition to an open area for additional comments. 29 students participated in this study (physical dissections teaching group=15; 3D scanned dissections teaching group= 14). Exam scores significantly increased in both groups (physical= 42.6% ± 17.9%; 3D= 44.3% ± 24.0; P < .001) and no difference was found between groups or past gross anatomy experience. Students taught using the 3D scans were more likely to agree that they “would be able to sufficiently learn anatomy using 3D scans” (physical= 3.0 ± 0.8; 3D= 4.1 ± 1.1; P < .01). In addition, the students taught using the 3D scans were more likely to agree that they “enjoy using 3D scans to explore anatomical regions” (physical= 4.1 ± 0.9; 3D= 5.0 ± 0.0; P < .01) and that they “would be able to sufficiently learn anatomy using 3D scans” (physical= 3.0 ± 0.8; 3D= 4.1 ± 1.1; P < .01). Students preferred interactive features such as identification (count=20) and practical-style (count=24) quiz questions. Regardless of teaching group, students disagreed that they "would have a similar lab experience if I learned using 3D scans instead of dissection" (physical= 2.1 ± 0.6; 3D= 2.5 ± 0.8; P>.05) but agreed that they would use the 3D scans to prepare for the dissection lab and exams (physical= 4.5 ± 0.8; 3D= 4.9 ± 0.3; P>.05). This study demonstrates that 3D scans are a comparable resource to physical dissections in anatomy learning but students do not support replacing physical dissections with 3D scans.