Dissection versus Prosection: A Comparative Assessment of the Course Experiences, Approaches to Learning, and Academic Performance of Non-medical Undergraduate Students in Human Anatomy.

Many institutions rely upon prosection-based laboratories as more resource-efficient and time-effective alternatives to traditional cadaver dissection for human anatomy education. To facilitate growing enrollment numbers despite resource limitations, the University of Guelph (a non-medical institution) introduced a modified "stepwise" prosection-based laboratory cohort to supplement a dissection-based course. In this design, all students attended the same lectures, but those in the dissection-based cohort learned by performing regional dissections and students in the prosection-based cohort studied from those dissections. Prosection students thereby witnessed a "slow reveal" of structures throughout the course. This study compared the perceived course experiences, student approaches to learning, and academic performance between the two groups. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to isolate the effect of the laboratory environment on student approaches to learning and academic performance from demographic and situational covariates. Both groups reported positive course experience ratings and high average final grades that were not statistically dissimilar (P > 0.05), increased reliance on deep approaches to learning (P = 0.002), and decreased reliance on surface approaches to learning (P = 0.023). When controlling for covariates, participation in dissection had small but statistically significant positive associations with deep approaches to learning (P = 0.043), performance on laboratory oral assessments (P < 0.001), and average final grades (P = 0.039). Ultimately, both designs promoted meaningful learning and desirable performance outcomes, indicating that both dissection and stepwise prosection have the potential to facilitate high quality human anatomy instruction.