Near‐peer driven dissection selective: A primer to the medical school anatomy course

In the anatomy laboratory, skill remains a critical component to unlocking the true value of learning from cadaveric dissection. However, there is little if any room for provision of instruction in proper dissection technique. We describe how near‐peer instructors designed a supplemental learning activity to enhance the dissection experience for first‐year medical students. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of this curriculum in improving participants' understanding of dissection technique and its impact on perceived challenges associated with the anatomy course. Curriculum was designed under faculty guidance and included didactic sessions, low‐fidelity models, dissection, student presentations, and clinical correlations. Participants' (n = 13) knowledge of basic dissection techniques and concepts were assessed before the selective, and both participants' and nonparticipants' (n = 39) knowledge was assessed at the end of week one and week seven of the anatomy course. Scores were compared using repeated measures ANOVA followed by post hoc t‐tests. Thirteen deidentified reflective essays were reviewed by four independent reviewers for themes that aligned with learning objectives. Participants in the selective course scored higher on assessment of dissection techniques and concepts one week after the selective compared to both nonparticipants and their own baseline scores before the selective. Analysis of student reflections resulted in four themes: confidence with dissection skill, sharing resources and transfer of knowledge, learning environment, and psychological impact of perceived challenges of the anatomy course. Near‐peer driven supplemental exercises are effective in facilitating dissection skills. This dissection primer increases student confidence and alleviates apprehension associated with anatomy courses. Clin. Anat. 28:985–993, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Anatomy in medical education: Perceptions of undergraduate medical students

AimThe best method to teach anatomy is widely debated. A shift away from cadaveric dissection in UK medical schools towards newer approaches has taken place without adequate evaluation of their suitability. The impact of this on future anatomical and surgical competencies is unclear. We assessed student perceptions to different methods of anatomy teaching.MethodsAll 2nd year students at Leeds School of Medicine were invited to complete a matrix-grid questionnaire. Participants were asked to score six methods of anatomy teaching (dissection; prosection; lectures; models; PC software packages; living & radiological anatomy) using a 5-point Likert-type scale on the ability to achieve nine learning objectives. Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney analyses suitable for non-parametric data were used to evaluate differences in scores between teaching methods.Results170 students (71%) responded to the survey. Overall, dissection was the single highest scored method, followed by prosection. Newer approaches such as models, computer software packages and living & radiological anatomy scored comparatively worse. The most suitable method for achieving individual learning objectives was variable with dissection perceived as most suitable for four out of nine objectives.ConclusionsCadaveric dissection is a favourable approach for achieving important learning objectives in the field of anatomy. Further evaluation of teaching methods is required prior to changes being made in the curricula of UK medical schools.     

Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change

Throughout the world, recent developments in medical curricula have led to marked changes in the teaching of gross anatomy. This change has involved decreasing curricular student contact time and the use of new methods for anatomical teaching. Some "modern" anatomists have welcomed the arrival of these novel methods while other, more "traditional," anatomists have fought to maintain the use of cadaveric dissection. Consequently, controversy over teaching methods has developed to the point that "modernist" and "traditionalist" views within the community of professional anatomists seem to have diverged such that the importance of gross anatomy in the medical curriculum is disputed and that cadaveric dissection by students is no longer the preferred method of teaching. This study tests this hypothesis using Thurstone and Chave attitude analyses to assess attitudes to educational change and the importance of anatomy in medicine and a matrix questionnaire that required professional anatomists to relate course aims to different teaching methods. In total, 112 completed questionnaires were received from anatomists who are employed at higher education institutions that use various teaching methods and who span the academic hierarchy. The results suggest that over 90% of anatomists favor educational change and approximately 98% of professional anatomists believe that gross anatomy has an important role to play in clinical medicine. A clear majority of the anatomists (69%) favored the use of human cadaveric dissection over other teaching methods (this method seeming to achieve a range of different course aims/objectives) (P < 0.001; Kruskal-Wallis). Using Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests, the order-of-preference for teaching methods was found to be as follows: 1. Practical lessons using cadaveric dissection by students. 2. Practical lessons using prosection. 3. Tuition based upon living and radiological anatomy. 4. Electronic tuition using computer aided learning (CAL). 5. Didactic teaching alone (e.g. lectures/class room-based tuition). 6. Use of models. The preference for the use of human cadaveric dissection was evident in all groups of anatomists, whether "traditionalist" or "modernist" (P = 0.002, Chi-squared). These findings are therefore not consistent with our initial hypothesis.     

Peer teaching in gross anatomy at St. Louis University

The gross anatomy course at St. Louis University was designed to utilize peer teaching. Eight students are assigned to each cadaver and they work in teams of two, so that every student does one out of every four dissections. During one class period, the lecture for a unit is given to all class members, followed by a prosection demonstration to only the dissectors of that unit (one-fourth of the class). At the beginning of the following class period, the dissectors give a prosection demonstration of their dissection to the other six student assigned to their cadaver. The lecture and prosection demonstrations for the next unit are given to the next team of dissectors as above. The students anonymously evaluate the course each year. Passing Part I of the National Board Examinations is required. For 12 years, the National Board Unit Examination of gross anatomy was given as the final examination for the course. The course is liked by the students, can be taught with a minimal number of faculty, utilizes only half the cadavers of a traditional course, has less contact hours than the national average, yet students do better than the national average on the anatomy part of the National Board Examination. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Adaptations in Anatomy Education during COVID-19

BackgroundThe impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has profoundly affected education, with most universities changing face-to-face classes to online formats. To adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic situation, we adopted a blended learning approach to anatomy instruction that included online lectures, pre-recorded laboratory dissection videos, and 3D anatomy applications, with condensed offline cadaver dissection.MethodsWe aimed to examine the learning outcomes of a newly adopted anatomy educational approach by 1) comparing academic achievement between the blended learning group (the 2020 class, 108 students) and the traditional classroom learning group (the 2019 class, 104 students), and 2) an online questionnaire survey on student preference on the learning method and reasons of preference.ResultsThe average anatomy examination scores of the 2020 class, who took online lectures and blended dissection laboratories, were significantly higher than those of the 2019 class, who participated in an offline lecture and dissection laboratories. The questionnaire survey revealed that students preferred online lectures over traditional large group lecture-based teaching because it allowed them to acquire increased self-study time, study according to their individual learning styles, and repeatedly review lecture videos.ConclusionThis study suggests that a blended learning approach is an effective method for anatomy learning, and the advantage may result from increased self-directed study through online learning.     

Premedical anatomy experience and student performance in medical gross anatomy

Gross anatomy is considered one of the most important basic science courses in medical education, yet few medical schools require its completion prior to matriculation. The effect of taking anatomy courses before entering medical school on performance in medical gross anatomy has been previously studied with inconsistent results. The effect of premedical anatomy coursework on performance in medical gross anatomy, overall medical school grade point average (GPA), and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Level 1 (COMLEX 1) score was evaluated in 456 first‐year osteopathic medical students along with a survey on its perceived benefits on success in medical gross anatomy course. No significant differences were found in gross anatomy grade, GPA, or COMLEX 1 score between students with premedical anatomy coursework and those without. However, significant differences and higher scores were observed in students who had taken three or more undergraduate anatomy courses including at least one with cadaveric laboratory. There was significantly lower perceived benefit for academic success in the medical gross anatomy course (P<.001) from those students who had taken premedical anatomy courses (5.9 of 10) compared with those who had not (8.2 of 10). Results suggest that requiring any anatomy course as a prerequisite for medical school would not have significant effect on student performance in the medical gross anatomy course. However, requiring more specific anatomy coursework including taking three or more undergraduate anatomy courses, one with cadaveric laboratory component, may result in higher medical gross anatomy grades, medical school GPA, and COMLEX 1 scores. Clin. Anat. 30:303–311, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A follow-up comparative study of two modes of learning human anatomy: By dissection and from prosections

Two groups of medical students (traditional and experimental), who had studied the gross anatomy of the lower limb by different methods (by dissection and from prosections, respectively) 5 years earlier, were re-assessed without warning. The objective was to determine whether or not the learning mode had any implications for the subsequent recall of the material studied. Three tests were administered: a 100-item two-choice theory paper, a practical test consisting of 18 time stations with specimen-based questions, and a standardized oral examination. Both qualitative and quantitative assessments were made in the practical and oral examinations. Although the numerical scores gained by both groups in the practical test were statistically similar, the incidence of random guesswork was significantly less among students on the experimental program. The same group was also adjudged to have performed better in the oral examination by two of the investigators who were blind to the group affiliations of the students. The results suggest that on testing 5 years after a practical learning experience in gross anatomy, the numerical scores gained by students who had studied from prosections were similar to those of their peers who had carried out dissections but that, by some qualitative considerations, the recall ability of the non-dissecting students was superior. Furthermore, the program of study from prosections lasted only 74% of the duration of the dissection course and is thus more efficient. The results recommend the program to institutions faced with unfavorable student-to-cadaver ratios. The time it liberates may be dedicated to such other imaginative pedagogical purposes as autonomous student learning, clinical demonstrations, and problem-solving team exercises. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Significance of the role of self‐study and group discussion

The study of anatomy is experiencing a reduction in course duration and content, lecture and dissection hours, and number of lectures and examinations. This necessitates that medical students develop skills for self‐study. Toward that end, a self‐study module in basic anatomy was tested. Fifty‐seven new entrants were given a pretest (Pretest A) containing a questionnaire on basic anatomy. Then, in three groups each of 11 and two groups each of 12, they learned basic anatomy from recommended books in the library by self‐study for 2 hours. They discussed what they had learned among their group members during a practical exercise, followed by a posttest (Posttest A). A control group of 57 new entrants during another year was given the same pretest (Pretest B) and a lecture on basic anatomy. Then, without opportunity for self‐study, they were given a posttest (Posttest B). The answers were scored out of 40. The students' mean mark in Pretest A was poor. All the groups performed well in the practical exercise. In Posttest A, the mean mark increased significantly (P < 0.001), by 9.4. It shows that self‐study and group discussions significantly helped the students in construction of core anatomical knowledge as well as the acquisition, assimilation, and application of anatomical concepts and content. The mean mark in Pretest B was also poor. In Posttest B, the mean mark increased significantly (P < 0.001), by 14.2. This indicates that the traditional teaching session is also useful and serves to advance student knowledge. Thus our innovative study module can create a positive learning environment and can become an alternative to traditional instruction in teaching anatomical terminology and basic anatomy. Clin. Anat. 12:277–280, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Integration of clinical problems in teaching gross anatomy: living anatomy, X-ray anatomy, patient presentations, and films depicting clinical problems

In addition to lectures and the dissection course, four supplements are described to stimulate first-year medical students to learn gross anatomy. All topics are coordinated with the dissection course. The additional options are living anatomy, X-ray anatomy by a roentgenologist, presentation of patients by clinicians, and films on clinical problems. This integrated curriculum of basic and applied anatomy generates a high level of student interest in gross anatomy.     

Study pace as a factor that influences achievement in a human anatomy course

Determining the optimal conditions for learning anatomy will help medical students to do better in a gross anatomy course. We examined the two types of anatomy courses offered in our institution: slow-paced (SP) and fast-paced (FP) courses, in which the same content is taught in approximately the same number of hours (SP = 91 hr; FP = 90 hr), but the duration of each course differed (SP = 91 1-hr sessions lasting 20 weeks; FP = 45 2-hr sessions lasting 9 weeks). The objective of this study was to find out whether a relationship exists between anatomy course pace and achievement. Two groups of students were tested on their anatomy knowledge both before beginning and after completing either the SP or the FP course. The average difference in scores obtained on the pre- and postcourse tests for each group was obtained and a t-test was used (P < 0.05) to compare the mean score for each group. A significant difference was found between group SP and group FP, with the highest achievement obtained by group SP. The pace of the course is thus a factor that influences achievement.     

Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students

BACKGROUND: The introduction of a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum at the School of Medicine of the University of Melbourne has necessitated a reduction in the number of lectures and limited the use of dissection in teaching anatomy. In the new curriculum, students learn the anatomy of different body systems using PBL tutorials, practical classes, pre-dissected specimens, computer-aided learning multimedia and a few dissection classes. The aims of this study are: (1) to assess the views of first- and second-year medical students on the importance of dissection in learning about the anatomy, (2) to assess if students' views have been affected by demographic variables such as gender, academic background and being a local or an international student, and (3) to assess which educational tools helped them most in learning the anatomy and whether dissection sessions have helped them in better understanding anatomy. METHODS: First- and second-year students enrolled in the medical course participated in this study. Students were asked to fill out a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. Data was analysed using Mann-Whitney's U test, Wilcoxon's signed-ranks or the calculation of the Chi-square value. RESULTS: The response rates were 89% for both first- and second-year students. Compared to second-year students, first-year students perceived dissection to be important for deep understanding of anatomy (P < 0.001), making learning interesting (P < 0.001) and introducing them to emergency procedures (P < 0.001). Further, they preferred dissection over any other approach (P < 0.001). First-year students ranked dissection (44%), textbooks (23%), computer-aided learning (CAL), multimedia (10%), self-directed learning (6%) and lectures (5%) as the most valuable resources for learning anatomy, whereas second-year students found textbooks (38%), dissection (18%), pre-dissected specimens (11%), self-directed learning (9%), lectures (7%) and CAL programs (7%) as most useful. Neither of the groups showed a significant preference for pre-dissected specimens, CAL multimedia or lectures over dissection. CONCLUSIONS: Both first- and second-year students, regardless of their gender, academic background, or citizenship felt that the time devoted to dissection classes were not adequate. Students agreed that dissection deepened their understanding of anatomical structures, provided them with a three-dimensional perspective of structures and helped them recall what they learnt. Although their perception about the importance of dissection changed as they progressed in the course, good anatomy textbooks were perceived as an excellent resource for learning anatomy. Interestingly, innovations used in teaching anatomy, such as interactive multimedia resources, have not replaced students' perceptions about the importance of dissection.     

Attitudes of medical and dental students to dissection

Guy's, King's, and St. Thomas's School of Medicine encourages students to learn anatomy from human dissection. Today, there is a worldwide move of anatomy-based teaching away from dissection to prosection. This study investigates how attitudes toward dissection vary with gender and ethnicity. We assessed students' reactions and concerns regarding the dissecting room, any coping strategies they use to combat them, and analyzed effective methods of teaching anatomy to medical and dental students. Three questionnaires were distributed amongst 474 first-year medical and dental students before dissection and 1 week and 12 weeks after exposure to the dissecting room. Over the 3 months we found significant changes in the concerns of students about dissection. There were also significant differences (P < 0.05) between medical and dental students, males and females, and students of differing ethnic backgrounds, which persisted over 12 weeks. Both medical and dental students found tutorials and textbooks of most value in learning anatomy. Dental students found prosection more useful than medical students (P < 0.001) though neither group demonstrated a significant preference for prosection over dissection. Of concern, 7% reported recurring images of cadavers and 2% insomnia after commencing dissection. Interest in the subject matter and discussion were the commonest methods used to combat stress. This study contributes to the ongoing debate about the value of the dissecting room in the medical school curriculum.     

Online lessons of human anatomy: Experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

The social distancing measures necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in the migration of human anatomy lessons to virtual platforms. Even student communities have had to relocate online. The virtual replacement of visual–spatial and social elements, essential for studying anatomy, has posed particular challenges for educators. Our department used Microsoft Teams, an online communication platform, in conjunction with Visible Body, a 3D anatomical modeling program, EdiErmes online resources, and Leica Acquire for teaching microscopic anatomy. We delivered about 160 h of both synchronous and asynchronous lessons for students on the medical degree program per academic year. In this study, we compare face-to-face and distance teaching in order to define these different approaches better and to evaluate the final student scores. The aim is to debate the relevance of distance learning pedagogy to the design of new online anatomy teaching courses and the development of online learning. Analysis of the final scores showed that anatomy examinations after the online course had a statistically significantly higher average value than those obtained at the end of the face-to-face course. The experience at the University of Genoa shows that distance learning in the teaching of human anatomy was perceived by most students as useful and positive. Distance learning can be an effective support for anatomy teaching, facilitating a different mode of learning in which lessons and study are more sensitive to the individual's schedule and needs. Of course, we should not and cannot exclude face-to-face teaching.     

Effects of four supplemental instruction programs on students' learning of gross anatomy

Many researchers have reported that supplemental instruction programs improve medical students' performance in various basic sciences. This study was conducted to evaluate the summative effects of four supplemental instruction programs (i.e., second-year medical student teaching assistant program; directed study program; weekly instructor laboratory reviews; and a web-based anatomy program) on medical students' gross anatomy laboratory practical performance. First-year medical students from the graduating class of 2006 (n = 223) received the four supplemental instruction programs (Experimental Group). The Control Group consisted of first-year medical students from the graduating class of 2005 (n = 254) who did not receive the four supplemental learning methods. Mann-Whitney rank sum tests were used to compare the two groups' median percentages for the back-upper limb (B-UL) and the lower limb (LL) parts of a gross anatomy laboratory practical. The Experimental Group's median percentages for both the B-UL (77.78%) and LL (83.33%) were significantly greater than that of the Control Group (B-UL = 69.00%; LL = 81.00%; P < 0.05). Results from a post-hoc student survey showed that more students both rated and ranked the weekly instructor laboratory reviews as extremely useful and most beneficial, respectively. A greater number of students rated and ranked the web-based anatomy program as not useful and least beneficial, respectively. The results from this study suggest that the four supplemental instruction programs improved students' learning of gross anatomy as measured by laboratory practical performance. In addition, students most valued the additional time in the gross anatomy laboratory with the instructors.     

The relationship between premedical coursework in gross anatomy and histology and medical school performance in gross anatomy and histology

Many premedical students enroll in courses whose content will be encountered again during their medical education. Presumably, students believe this practice will lead to improved academic performance in corresponding medical school courses. Therefore, this study was undertaken to determine whether a premedical gross anatomy and/or histology course resulted in increased performance in corresponding medical school courses. A second aim of the study was to examine whether the type of premedical gross anatomy and/or histology course differentially affected medical school performance. A survey that assessed premedical gross anatomy and histology coursework was administered to 440 first-year medical students. The results from this survey showed that students with premedical gross anatomy (n = 236) and/or histology (n = 109) earned significantly more points in the corresponding medical school course than students without the premedical coursework (P < 0.05). Analysis of premedical course types revealed that students who took a gross anatomy course with prosected specimens (n = 35) earned significantly more points that those students without premedical gross anatomy coursework (P < 0.05). The results from this study suggest: 1) premedical gross anatomy and/or histology coursework improves academic performance in corresponding medical school courses, and 2) a premedical gross anatomy course with prosected specimens, a specific type of undergraduate course, significantly improves academic performance in medical gross anatomy.     

A change in paradigm: Giving back identity to donors in the anatomy laboratory

This article describes a paradigm of teaching in the anatomy laboratory where students interact with the families of the deceased persons whom they are dissecting. This approach focuses learning anatomy and medicine on the patient via the implementation of five guiding principles: the First Patient; Knowledge; Reflection and Reflective Practice; Treating the Total Patient; and Professionalism. Physician training typically begins with cadaveric dissection (i.e., dissection of the first patient), and therefore the medical school gross anatomy course provides an ideal environment for multifaceted educational experiences where cadaveric dissection is used to teach structure and function as well as the skills and competencies critical to patient care. Here, these principles are described, and the impact on student doctors and outcomes discussed. The results suggest that mastery of basic science knowledge and competencies, including professionalism, compassion, and leadership skill is enhanced by this protocol. Clin. Anat. 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The use of small group case-based exercises in human gross anatomy: A method for introducing active learning in a traditional course format

As part of the curricular change at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, we focused on active learning and greater integration of basic and clinical sciences. With these objectives in mind, this report describes the use of small-group, case-based exercises in our gross anatomy course and provides one example of integrating such activities into a traditional course. In addition to formal lectures and laboratory dissection, students meet approximately every fourth class period in small groups to discuss a clinical case which focuses on the relevant anatomy taught at that time. Two first-year students lead each small group; one fourth-year student facilitator also attends to provide clinical correlations, answer questions, and reinforce the anatomy. Formative feedback suggests students enthusiastically endorse the self-directed active learning; they feel these exercises offer both a valuable approach to learning and an opportunity to practice presentation and leadership skills. First-year students enjoy the interaction with fourth-year facilitators and the fourth-year students appreciate the opportunity to review basic science material. Our data suggest that students learn to “think” about the anatomy, and we hope learn to use their understanding and knowledge base in a practical fashion. Moreover, these case-based exercises can fit nicely into a variety of curricular formats, especially where problem-based tutorials may not be feasible or desirable. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by professional anatomists

Changes in the teaching of gross anatomy have often involved decreasing student contact time alongside the use of new methods for teaching. However, there remains controversy over teaching methods and about whether cadaveric dissection by students should remain the preferred method. Furthermore, decisions concerning changes to curricula are more likely to be taken by choosing a method of teaching rather than by proper evaluation of what are the desired learning outcomes for a course in anatomy. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the attitudes of anatomists in Europe towards the methods of teaching best fitting a series of learning outcomes for anatomy and secondarily to test the hypothesis that, from evaluation of learning outcomes, anatomy is best taught by cadaveric dissection by the students. About 113 completed questionnaires were received from anatomists who are employed at higher education institutions that use various teaching methods. Most anatomists (69%) favored the use of cadaveric dissection above other teaching methods when considering the whole series of learning comes, this method seeming to achieve a range of different course aims/objectives, P < 0.001; Kruskal-Wallis). Consequently, these findings are consistent with our initial hypothesis. However, when individual learning outcomes were considered, the relationship was not so clear cut and, for example, little difference was discernible between teaching methods when considering learning outcomes related to the acquisition of anatomical knowledge. The use of human cadaveric dissection gained more approval when the skills-base was considered rather than just the content(knowledge)-base of an anatomical course.     

Does attendance at anatomy practical classes correlate with assessment outcome? A retrospective study of a large cohort of undergraduate anatomy students

Background

Anatomy in medical curricula is typically taught via pedagogy consisting of didactic lectures combined with a practical component. The practical component often includes traditional cadaveric dissection classes and/or workshops utilizing anatomical models, carefully prosected cadaveric material and radiology. The primary aim of this study was to determine if there is an association between attendance at practical classes in anatomy and student assessment outcomes. A secondary aim was to determine if student assessment outcomes were better when students preferentially attended workshops or prosection style practical classes.

Method

We retrospectively examined practical attendance records and assessment outcomes from a single large anatomy subject (approx. 450 students) to identify how attendance at anatomy practical classes correlates with assessment outcome.

Results

Students who scored above the median mark for each assessment attended significantly more practical classes than students who scored below the median assessment mark (Mann Whitney; p?<?0.001), and students who attended more than half the practical classes had significantly higher scores on assessments than students that attended less than half the practical classes (Mann Whitney; P?<?0.01). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between attendance at practical classes and outcomes for each assessment (Spearman’s correlation; p?<?0.01). There was no difference in assessment outcomes for students who preferentially attended more dissection compared to prosection style classes and vice versa (Mann Whitney; p?>?0.05).

Conclusions

Our findings show there is an association between student attendance at practical classes and performance on anatomy assessment.

     

Status of gross anatomy in the U.S. and Canada: Dilemma for the 21st century

As a component of a recent academic review, the Department of Anatomy and Neurosciences faculty at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas, developed a questionnaire designed to compare the curricula, direction, and challenges of their department with the approximately 140 anatomy departments in the U. S. and Canada. The response was overwhelming in that over 80% of the schools returned a completed questionnaire. One of the areas of interest revealed by this survey was a growing concern over significant changes in both medical school curricula and the future of anatomy departments. Most departments still used traditional lectures to present course material and the majority of the scheduled contact hours were in the dissection laboratory; however, other teaching formats, such as case studies and small group discussions, accounted for significantly more of the teaching effort. Nearly 20% of the schools were making major modifications in their teaching methods. The general trend was to include more integrated, problem-based learning and computer-assisted teaching while reducing overall content, didactic lectures, and rote memorization. The role and need for traditionally trained gross anatomists in medical education appeared to be diminishing as curricular reform moved toward more student-directed, faculty-facilitated programs. Concurrently, the recruitment and career development of gross anatomy faculty appeared to be influenced more by funding status than by academic training or teaching experience, as most departmental chairman were willing to hire non-anatomists and “train” them to assume an often reduced teaching load in gross anatomy courses. In addition, fewer graduate students were being trained in classical gross anatomy, a trend that better suited the emerging student-directed medical school curricula. The reduction in classically trained anatomists also appeared to reflect the widespread practice whereby anatomy faculty were rewarded far more for research than for teaching. Although the continued inclusion of gross anatomy in medical education appeared to be assured, its traditional mode of presentation and academic prominence will likely change by the turn of the century. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.