Cogent Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaed20

Perceptions of medical students regarding

methods of teaching human anatomy

Malak A. Alghamdi, Reem Bu Saeed, Waad Fudhah, Danah Alqarni, Shahad

Albarzan, Sheifa Alamoudi & Muhammad Anwar Khan

To cite this article: Malak A. Alghamdi, Reem Bu Saeed, Waad Fudhah, Danah Alqarni, Shahad
Albarzan, Sheifa Alamoudi & Muhammad Anwar Khan (2024) Perceptions of medical students
regarding methods of teaching human anatomy, Cogent Education, 11:1, 2340836, DOI:
10.1080/2331186X.2024.2340836

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2340836

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 18 Apr 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 938

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaed20
COGENT EDUCATION
2024, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 2340836
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2340836

CURRICULUM & TEACHING STUDIES | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Perceptions of medical students regarding methods of teaching

human anatomy
Malak A. Alghamdia,b, Reem Bu Saeeda,b, Waad Fudhaha,b, Danah Alqarnia,b, Shahad Albarzana,b,
Sheifa Alamoudia,b and Muhammad Anwar Khana,b
a
College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; bKing Abdullah
International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Anatomy education employs diverse teaching techniques worldwide, causing debates Received 20 October 2023
over the effectiveness of traditional versus newer methods. This study sought to Revised 1 April 2024
investigate medical students’ preferences for teaching methods in their institutions Accepted 3 April 2024
and provide recommendations for an optimal anatomy education model. In this
KEYWORDS
cross-sectional study, all Jeddah medical students were invited to participate in an Anatomy; medical
online survey. The response rate reached 30%, with 430/1424 students partaking, and education; dissection;
a sample size of 349 was established using non-probability convenience sampling. medical students
Students were questioned about the methods used at their institutions, and the sig-
nificance they attributed to each method. Additionally, their agreement with specific REVIEWING EDITOR
statements was assessed. Among 430 responses, diversity of anatomy teaching meth- Serafina Pastore, Education,
ods was reported across institutions. While all methods were deemed important, Psychology, Communication,
there were slight disparities in preferences, with cadaver dissection being the most Universita degli Studi Di Bari
Aldo Moro, Italy
favored (86.2%). Conversely, plastic models were rated the least preferred (29.9%).
The preferred comprehensive and practical approach to understand and memorize SUBJECTS
anatomy was combining two or more methods (29.8%). No significant association Medicine; Anatomy; Medical
was observed between gender and the importance of any method (p > 0.05). Based Education
on students’ perceptions, cadaver dissection is the most suitable approach for achiev-
ing important teaching goals in the field of anatomy. However, combining dissection
with digital models is the most preferred method. We recommend that medical
schools not limit the methods used in teaching anatomy and look toward choosing
preferred methods.

1. Introduction
Anatomy, integral to comprehending the human body’s intricacies, is a cornerstone of medical educa-
tion (Balta et al., 2017). The efficacy of teaching methods profoundly impacts students’ grasp of
anatomical concepts and their clinical application (Al-Mohrej et al., 2017). Thus, ongoing evaluation
and refinement of teaching approaches are imperative for optimal learning outcomes (Estai & Bunt,
2016).
Traditionally, cadaveric dissection was the primary method for anatomical education for centuries
(Mwachaka et al., 2016). However, recent decades have seen a shift toward innovative methodologies,
prompted by factors such as resource constraints, declining cadaver donations, and evolving educational
philosophies aimed at enhancing learning efficacy (Chapman et al., 2013).
Medical schools worldwide employ diverse teaching methodologies. In medical schools, methods for
teaching anatomy are classified into traditional and integrated curricula. The traditional teaching method

CONTACT Malak A. Alghamdi [email protected] College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences,
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
ß 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 M. A. ALGHAMDI ET AL.

is based on informative lectures and the dissection of a full cadaver by students to provide them with a
three-dimensional view (Balta et al., 2017). However, the methodology of teaching anatomy has trans-
formed with greater student engagement in computer simulations, models, imaging, and the Internet to
improve the learning experience (Sugand et al., 2010). There are many conflicting views regarding the
best techniques for delivering anatomical information. For example, some authors have stated that dis-
section is an important tool for learning anatomy (Shaffer, 2004). However, other authors have reported
that dissection can cause physical and emotional problems among medical students (Evans &
Fitzgibbon, 1992; Horne et al., 1990; Nnodim, 1996).
Numerous countries worldwide, including Australia, have abandoned dissection courses in recent dec-
ades and replaced them with more advanced and integrated approaches (Eppler et al., 2018). In UK
medical schools, the main anatomy teaching method is cadaveric dissection, followed by prosection
(Davis et al., 2014). In the Arabian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, most medical schools depend on
the problem-based learning (PBL) technique (Cowan et al., 2010). In this approach, students engage with
real-world clinical problems, initiating self-directed inquiry and research before reconvening with instruc-
tors to discuss their findings. PBL scenarios may involve clinical cases that require students to identify
relevant anatomical structures, understand their functions, and consider their spatial relationships.
Through these scenarios, students learn to integrate their knowledge of anatomy with other disciplines
such as physiology, pathology, and radiology, mirroring the challenges they will face in clinical practice
(Almulhem & Almulhem, 2022).
The students’ preferences of learning anatomy were investigated among two different Saudi institu-
tions in Riyadh. It was found that student’s methods of learning were distributed equally between mem-
orizing facts and learning by hands-on dissection, but students’ learning styles and preferences were
predominantly affected by different cultural backgrounds, study level, and gender (Al-Mohrej et al.,
2017). Understanding these preferences is crucial for tailoring teaching methods to the specific needs of
diverse student populations. While there are studies on student perceptions of anatomy education in
various countries (Abdullah et al., 2021; Bandyopadhyay & Biswas, 2017; Jaiswal et al., 2015; Tayyem
et al., 2019; Triepels et al., 2018), there is limited research specifically focusing on Jeddah region. This
study fills that gap by providing region-specific data, which can contribute to a more comprehensive
understanding of global trends and variations in anatomical education.
By exploring students’ views toward different teaching methods and their effectiveness, this study
can provide valuable insights for educators and curriculum designers in Jeddah’s medical schools.
Understanding which methods are most favored and why can help inform decisions about curriculum
design, resource allocation, and teaching approaches to enhance the learning experience and outcomes
for medical students.

2. Methods
2.1. Setting and population
The online questionnaire designed for this study was directed toward medical students at different med-
ical schools in Jeddah that are listed on the website of the Ministry of Education, including public insti-
tutions such as King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), King Abdulaziz
University (KAU) and, the University of Jeddah (UOJ), and private institutions such as Ibn Sina National
College for Medical Studies (ISNC), Batterjee Medical College (BMC), and Fakeeh College for Medical
Sciences (FCMS). All of these schools’ requirements consist of a six-year medical program in addition to
an internship year to obtain a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degree. The sample
size was calculated by using Raosoft software. The total number of medical students within Jeddah is
3840. The criteria considered were a confidence level of 95%, a margin of error of 5%, and a 50%
response distribution. The recommended sample size was determined to be 349.
Using the non-probability convenience sampling technique, medical students at Jeddah who were
enrolled in this study completed a self-administered questionnaire, which was distributed via email by
students’ affairs department in their institutions and social media platforms by targeting each institu-
tion’s community and then reaching students personally via direct messages. The sample recruitment
 COGENT EDUCATION 3

took place in the summer of 2021 and lasted for two months (June–July) to collect the required
responses.

2.2. Questionnaire
This study was an analytical cross-sectional survey that utilized an online questionnaire to collect
responses. The questionnaire was constructed based on previous literatures (Chapman et al., 2013; Davis
et al., 2014; Estai & Bunt, 2016). The questionnaire contained 13 questions. The first four questions tar-
geted demographic data and the anatomy teaching methods used in the respective participant’s institu-
tion. Questions 5–11 were rated on a Likert scale ((1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Neutral, (4)
Agree, (5) Strongly agree or (1) Not important, (2) Slightly important, (3) Neutral, (4) Important, (5) Very
important) to evaluate the importance, advantages, and disadvantages of each method. The last two
questions were open-ended and aimed to acquire more information about participants’ preferences in
teaching anatomy. In order to assess the questionnaire’s validity, the validation process was divided into
two main steps: content and face validity. for content validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by four
anatomists, one biostatistician, and two medical educators. As per the feedback received from the
reviewers, it has been suggested that providing a definition for each method of teaching anatomy
would be beneficial to ensure clarity and eliminate any potential confusion regarding the concepts. Also,
It was recommended to ensure that an equal number of sentences are allocated to advantages and dis-
advantages for each method in order to avoid any possible bias.
After taking their feedback into consideration, the questionnaire was distributed among medical stu-
dents to test for face validity. The feedback received regarding the questionnaire was positive, with
respondents indicating that it was clear, comprehensive, and relevant to the target group. The survey
consisted of 43 items, and Cronbach’s alpha for the survey was 0.877.

2.3. Data analysis

The data were reviewed to identify any missing information or inaccuracies prior to statistical analysis.
Data collected from the survey are presented as percentages, frequencies, and bar graphs to describe
categorical variables (institutions, sex, educational level, and techniques used to teach anatomy). A chi-
square test was used to compare categorical variables. The data were analyzed using the John’s
Macintosh Project (JMP) software, version 10.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

2.4. Ethical consideration

Subject privacy and confidentiality were ensured and no identifiers were collected. Informed consent
was obtained from all participants at the beginning of the questionnaire. This study was approved by
the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center and its Institutional Review Board (protocol
number SP21J/033/02).

3. Results
A total of 430 of 3840 students at Jeddah’s medical schools (KSAU-HS, KAU, UOJ, BMC, ISNC, and FCMS)
participated in the analytical cross-sectional survey (first year to internship year; Table 1). The response
rate was 30% as 1424 surveys were distributed.

3.1. Teaching tools used in Jeddah’s medical schools

The results showed that different institutions use different methods to teach human anatomy. At KSAU-
HS and UOJ, both plastinated cadavers and plastic models were used as teaching methods. At KAU,
BMC, and ISNC, a combination of cadaver dissection, prosected cadavers, plastinated cadavers, and plas-
tic models was used. The tools used at FCMS are cadaver dissection, plastinated cadavers, and plastic
models.
4 M. A. ALGHAMDI ET AL.

Table 1. Profile of study variables.

Variable N (%)
Sex
Female 236 (54.8)
Male 194 (45.1)
Educational level
Phase I
1st year 16 (3.7)
2nd year 50 (11.6)
Phase II
3rd year 113 (26.2)
4th year 102 (23.7)
Phase III
5th year 71 (16.5)
6th year 46 (10.6)
Intern 32 (7.4)
Institutions
KAU 131 (30.4)
KSAU-HS 127 (29.5)
UOJ 47 (10.9)
FCMS 47 (10.9)
ISNC 46 (10.6)
BMC 32 (7.4)
The total number of responses 430
King Abdulaziz University (KAU), King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS),
University of Jeddah (UOJ), Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences (FCMS), Ibn Sina National College for
Medical Studies (ISNC), Batterjee Medical College (BMC).

Figure 1. Students’ evaluation of anatomy teaching methods.

3.2. The importance of teaching tools

In general, students’ evaluations showed that all of the listed methods of teaching anatomy are impor-
tant. However, a small number of variations were found, with cadaver dissection the most important
method according to students’ perceptions (Figure 1). Medical students in Jeddah have different per-
spectives regarding the importance of the methods used to teach anatomy. Cadaver dissection was the
most important method at KSAU-HS (n ¼ 116; 91.3%), UOJ (n ¼ 42; 89.3%), and FCMS (n ¼ 45; 95.7%). On
the other hand, KAU (n ¼ 111; 84.7%) and BMC students (n ¼ 30; 93.7%) reported that cadaver dissection
and prosected cadavers were equally important. At ISNC (n ¼ 44, 95.6%), prosected cadavers were the
most agreed upon.In addition, students at at KSAU-HS (n ¼ 30; 23.6%), KAU (n ¼ 20; 15.2%), UOJ (n ¼ 8;
17%), BMC (n ¼ 6; 18.7%), and ISNC (n ¼ 5; 10.8%) mostly agreed that plastic models are not important.
FCMS students (n ¼ 5; 10.6%) believed that the digital method was not important.
 COGENT EDUCATION 5

3.3. The preferred way of learning human anatomy

Students were asked about a comprehensive and practical approach to understanding and memorizing
gross anatomy. The results showed that a combination of two or more methods (n ¼ 54; 29.8%) was the
most preferred approach for learning anatomy. This was followed by cadaver dissection (n ¼ 43; 23.7%),
a combination of all methods (n ¼ 23; 12.7%), repetition (n ¼ 15; 8.2%), digital models (n ¼ 14; 7.7%), a
practical approach (n ¼ 7; 3.8%), linking information with reality (n ¼ 6; 3.3%), observation before explor-
ing theory and tutor guidance (n ¼ 3; 1.6%), and finally, using plastic models, using plastinated models,
spending more time, drowning, peer study, and self-studying (n ¼ 1; 0.5%).

3.4. The best way to learn human anatomy

The results showed that the majority of the students (n ¼ 371; 86.2%) agreed with the statement
‘Dissection is the best way to learn human anatomy’. However, the statement ‘Plastic models are the
best way to learn human anatomy’ was rated at the bottom of the list (n ¼ 129; 29.9%).

3.5. Advantages and disadvantages of the methods used to teach anatomy (Table 2)
Students were given many statements describing each tool to assess their opinions. The highest agree-
ment regarding the cadaver dissection was that ‘it enhances active and deep learning’ (n ¼ 399; 92.7%),
whilst they mostly disagreed with it being ‘time-consuming and outdated’ (n ¼ 208; 48.3%). In addition,
the most frequently agreed-with statement regarding the prosected cadaver was that ‘it allows easy
exposure to structures that require hours to find’ (safe time; n ¼ 351; 81.5), while they disagreed that ‘it
is flexible and available at any time’ (n ¼ 56; 12.9%). Moreover, plastinated models were mostly reported
as ‘odorless, allowing convenient storage, and ease of handling’ (n ¼ 347; 80.6%), but it was noted that
‘structures and their relations cannot be easily observed’ (n ¼ 77; 17.6%; (Table 2, 2.3). Plastic models
were mostly declared to be ‘safe and easy to handle’ (n ¼ 372; 86.4%); however, the statement that ‘they
do not show deep structures such as bones and deeper muscles’ had the highest disagreement (n ¼ 61;
14.1%). Regarding digital models, the most-agreed statement was that ‘they provide students independ-
ence in choosing different views and angles that are difficult with a cadaver’ (n ¼ 343; 79.7%), while par-
ticipants disagreed almost evenly that plastic models ‘do not enhance understanding and retention of
spatial information and relationships’ (n ¼ 82; 19%) and that they ‘do not reveal anatomical variations’
(n ¼ 84; 19.4%).

3.6. Comparison regarding the importance of teaching methods

No significant association was observed between sex and the importance of any method (p > 0.05).
There was also no significant association between public and private medical schools in terms of the
importance of cadaver dissection, prosected cadavers, or digital models (p > 0.05). However, significant
results were found regarding institutions for plastinated and plastic models (p < 0.05), as private medical
schools found that these models were important (Table 3).
In Jeddah, medical programs are divided into three phases: Phase I includes the first and second
years, phase II includes the third and fourth years, and phase III includes the fifth and sixth years as well
as the internship year. The results showed a significant association between the phases and the impor-
tance of prosected cadavers. Medical students in all phases agreed that prosected cadavers are an
important method for teaching anatomy. In contrast, no significant association was found for the other
methods (Table 4).

4. Discussion
Anatomy improves our understanding of the body’s structures and functions. Significantly, it is essential
in clinical practice for medical students and clinicians to develop clinical skills. This study aimed to
explore the perceptions of students at medical schools located in Jeddah regarding the effectiveness of
6 M. A. ALGHAMDI ET AL.

Table 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Anatomy Teaching Methods.

N (%)
Agree Neutral Disagree
2.1. Cadaver dissection
Enhances active and deep learning 399 (92.7) 25 (5.8) 6 (1.3)
Prepares students for encounters with dead 344 (79.9) 65 (1.51) 21 (4.7)
Helps in practicing manual skills 387 (89.9) 33 (7.6) 10 (2.2)
Helps in identifying anatomical variations 391(90.8) 32 (7.4) 7 (1.5)
Prepares students for clinical practice 340 (79) 63 (14.6) 27 (6.1)
Has health and safety concerns associated with formalin used in 264 (61.3) 122 (28.3) 44 (10.2)
preparation
Useful for students with surgical career intentions only 184 (42.7) 78 (18.1) 168 (39)
Time-consuming and outdated 98 (28.8) 124 (22.7) 208 (48.3)
2.2. Prosected cadaver
Allows easy exposure to structures that needs hours to find (safe time) 351(81.5) 69 (16) 10 (2.2)
Flexible and available at any time 288 (66.9) 86 (20) 56 (12.9)
Structures and their relations are easily observed 295 (68.6) 101 (23.4) 34 (7.8)
Has health and safety concerns associated with Formalin used in 243 (56.4) 144 (33.4) 43 (9.9)
preparation
2.3. Plastinated cadaver
Odorless, allow convenient storage and ease of handling 347 (80.6) 64 (14.8) 19 (4.3)
Structures and their relations are easily observed 271 (62.9) 82 (19) 77 (17.6)
Have some limitations such as shrinkage, loss of texture, natural tissue 336 (78.1) 84 (19.5) 10 (2.2)
color and fine details
Help in finding deep structures such as blood vessels and nerves is 308 (71.5) 87 (20.2) 35 (8.1)
difficult due to rigidity of the models
Easily damaged and difficult to replace/fix 244 (56.7) 143 (33.2) 43 (9.9)
2.4. Plastic models
Safe and easy to handle 372 (86.4) 44 (10.2) 14 (3.2)
Odorless, allow convenient storage and ease of handling 348 (80.9) 59 (13.7) 23 (5.2)
Flexible and available anytime 357 (82.9) 56 (13) 17 (3.8)
Provide better observation of small organs like ears and eyes 301 (69.9) 86 (20) 43 (9.9)
Do not show deep structures such as bones and deeper muscles 187 (66.7) 82 (19) 61 (14.1)
Do not reveal anatomical variation 299 (69.4) 99 (23) 32 (7.4)
2.5. Digital models
Enhance independent learning, and problem solving 322 (73.7) 85 (19.7) 23 (5.3)
Flexible and available anywhere and anytime 325 (75.5) 77 (17.9) 28 (6.4)
Allow students to visualize, dissect and interact with simulated objects in 324 (75.3) 82 (19) 24 (5.5)
artificial 3D space.
Provide the opportunity to learn gross anatomy without requiring 336 (77.9) 76 (17.6) 18 (4.1)
storage, ventilation infrastructure or embalming.
Provide students independence in choosing different views and angles 343 (79.7) 71 (16.5) 16 (3.6)
that are difficult with a cadaver.
Allow students to explore a whole human body and changing various 341 (79.2) 63 (14.6) 26 (5.9)
system
Do not provide physical manipulation of organs 297 (69) 92 (21.3) 41 (9.4)
Do not enhance understanding and retention of spatial information and 201 (46.7) 147 (34.1) 82 (19)
relationship
Do not reveal anatomical variations 234 (54.3) 112 (26) 84 (19.4)

Table 3. The importance of each method among private and public medical schools.
Not important Neutral Important
p
n % n % n %
Cadaver dissection 0.07
Public institute 10 3.3 26 8.5 269 88.2
Private institute 0 0.0 7 5.6 118 94.4
Prosected cadaver 0.11
Public institute 10 3.3 43 14.1 252 82.6
Private institute 3 2.4 9 7.2 113 90.4
Plastinated cadaver 0.01
Public institute 32 10.5 64 21.0 209 68.5
Private institute 5 4.0 16 12.8 104 83.2
Plastic models 0.03
Public institute 58 19.0 65 21.3 182 59.7
Private institute 12 9.6 23 18.4 90 72.0
Digital models 0.36
Public institute 41 13.4 69 22.6 195 63.9
Private institute 11 8.8 27 21.6 87 69.6
Chi-squared test.
 COGENT EDUCATION 7

Table 4. The Importance of each method in regards to medical years.

Not important Neutral Important
p
n % n % n %
Cadaver dissection 0.062a
Phase I 0 0.0 3 4.5 63 95.5
Phase II 3 1.4 13 6.0 199 92.6
Phase III 6 5.1 14 12.0 97 82.9
Intern 1 3.1 3 9.4 28 87.5
Prosected cadaver 0.002a
Phase I 1 1.5 3 4.5 62 93.9
Phase II 3 1.4 21 9.8 191 88.8
Phase III 8 6.8 22 18.8 87 74.4
Intern 1 3.1 6 18.8 25 78.1
Plastinated cadaver 0.061b
Phase I 3 4.5 14 21.2 49 74.2
Phase II 18 8.4 30 14.0 167 77.7
Phase III 13 11.1 25 21.4 79 67.5
Intern 3 9.4 11 34.4 18 56.3
Plastic models 0.176b
Phase I 14 21.2 14 21.2 38 57.6
Phase II 29 13.5 41 19.1 145 67.4
Phase III 20 17.1 22 18.8 75 64.1
Intern 7 21.9 11 34.4 14 43.8
Digital models 0.666b
Phase I 11 16.7 16 24.2 39 59.1
Phase II 24 11.2 49 22.8 142 66.0
Phase III 15 12.8 22 18.8 80 68.4
Intern 2 6.3 9 28.1 21 65.6
a
Fisher exact test.
b
Chi-squared test.

the current methods used to teach human anatomy in their institutions. In this study, the students
emphasized the importance of active and engaged learning in improving their knowledge and under-
standing. Similarly, a previous study mentioned that an active learning strategy is considered an effect-
ive learning tool in anatomy, as students use their own creativity and intelligence in preparing muscle
presentations (Singh et al., 2019).
Plastinated cadavers are the dominant method for teaching anatomy at KSAU-HS. In previous studies,
students indicated that plastinated cadavers have proven to be practical for satisfying students’ needs at
different levels. Anatomists favor plastinated cadavers owing to their multiple advantages (Estai & Bunt,
2016). Similarly, our results mostly reported that plastination has the benefits of ‘being odorless, allowing
convenient storage, and ease of handling’.
The results indicate that all methods used in teaching anatomy are fundamental. However, slight var-
iations make the traditional method, cadaver dissection, the most important method, followed in
descending order by prosected cadavers, plastinated cadavers, digital models, and plastic models. These
results are similar to those reported in another studies in which the majority of students agreed that
cadaveric dissection was an important and essential method for teaching anatomy (Shaffer, 2004). This
finding was also supported by most anatomists (80%) in Ireland and the UK (Balta et al., 2017), but our
study differs in exploring students’ perceptions, not those of anatomists. However, three other studies
found that dissection can cause physical and emotional problems in medical students (Evans &
Fitzgibbon, 1992; Horne et al., 1990; Nnodim, 1996). Students agreed that cadaver dissection enhances
active and deep learning, which was also agreed upon in another study, with participants indicating
that cadaver dissection assists the understanding of three-dimensional (3D) structures through inquisi-
tiveness and self-exploration (Sugand et al., 2010).
Moreover, similar to a study done in University College Cork (Abdullah et al., 2021), students preferred
a combination of two or more methods, especially the combination of cadaver dissection and digital
models Because most students admitted the importance of dissecting a cadaver, they preferred using it
accompanied by digital approaches, as those provided them with independence in choosing different
views and angles that are difficult with a cadaver. This was followed by cadaver dissection and using all
methods. As indicated by the opinion of the students, the statement ‘Dissection is the best way to learn
human anatomy’ was the most agreed upon, and the statement regarding plastic models was the least
8 M. A. ALGHAMDI ET AL.

agreed upon. Likewise, according to research conducted in Ghana, the majority of medical students
agree that cadaver dissection is the most useful teaching method in anatomy, aiding them in the com-
prehension and recollection of their knowledge. Clinically, it increases their examination skills, helps
them comprehend the effects of trauma, is highly respectful of the human body, and makes studying
fun (Alhassan & Majeed, 2018). Significantly, it facilitates achieving high marks on both oral and
written examinations (Dissabandara et al., 2015). Similarly, some studies have reported the importance
of cadaver dissection as indicated by student perceptions (Dissabandara et al., 2015; Thorat &
Jadhav, 2010).
The results of this study showed no gender differences in the perception of the importance of the
methods used in teaching anatomy. Both males and females agreed that cadaver dissection is the most
important method and strongly believed that dissection enhances a profound understanding of the
human body. Females believed that cadaveric dissection helped with acquiring clinical skills, while males
believed it helped with recognizing anatomical variations. Our results contradict a study that reported
that learning style preferences differ between males and females, which should be taken into consider-
ation by anatomy instructors because by taking this diversity into consideration, students can achieve
optimal performance and avoid untoward methods (Al-Mohrej et al., 2017). Another study conducted in
Iran showed obvious variations between male- and female-preferred anatomy teaching styles. Female
students preferred the aural teaching method, while male students favored the kinesthetic teaching
method (Sarabi-Asiabar et al., 2015). Thus, identifying the teaching styles of learners at the beginning of
their college journey is helpful as students become more aware of their preferred learning methods,
allowing them to select better methods to enhance their learning, and graduates can gain sufficient
knowledge and skills as a result of effective learning (Sarabi-Asiabar et al., 2015). In a comparison
with another study conducted in Melbourne on first- and second-year medical students, female students
had greater concerns about the smell of cadavers than male students in both years. However, neither
sex raised concerns related to having thoughts about death during dissection. First-year medical stu-
dents ranked cadaver dissection as their top choice when learning anatomy; second-year medical stu-
dents considered cadaver dissection to be the second-most useful method in anatomy resources, giving
many reasons in their paper. First, second-year medical students studied the central nervous system
(CNS), which led them to recognize the limitations of the cadaver dissection method in viewing the ana-
tomical space and solid structure of the skull. In addition, they have limited time for dissection because
dissection of the head and neck requires extensive time, which influences their opinions (Azer &
Eizenberg, 2007).
Similar to a study conducted at the UK Lead School of Medicine on students’ perceptions regarding
anatomy teaching methods, it was documented that traditional methods of teaching anatomy were
upheld by students, and anatomical models (e.g. plastic) ranked among the lowest-scoring methods, as
shown in our study. However, Jeddah’s medical students graded digital models combined with trad-
itional techniques as their top preference, in contrast to the UK lead school students, who ranked digital
models among the lowest tools. While the previous study focused only on second-year students, this
study was conducted across all seven medical years (Chapman et al., 2013). In addition, similar to what
was reported in one study, reducing the number of teaching hours in the medical anatomy curriculum
raised concerns about medical students’ anatomical knowledge (Balta et al., 2017). This concern is similar
to that mentioned by some of Jeddah’s medical students regarding the necessity of more time for
teaching anatomy. Additionally, a cross-sectional study conducted at KSAU-HS Riyadh revealed that the
methods of teaching anatomy and students’ preferences should be considered. It was also found that
there is no single ‘best’ method to learn anatomy as many factors affect the selection of the methods of
learning anatomy (Al-Mohrej et al., 2017), which is similar to the results of our study.

5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the traditional method of cadaver dissection has been the gold standard for learning anat-
omy for hundreds of years, and, according to Jeddah’s medical students, it remains thus at the present
time. With technological expansion, a combination of cadaveric dissection and digital models is pre-
ferred. We recommend that medical schools not limit the methods used in teaching anatomy and look
 COGENT EDUCATION 9

toward choosing preferred methods. For example, dissection can be combined with the methods used
in the institutions. In conclusion, to help provide enhanced education for students, further studies
should be conducted using a randomized technique to determine anatomists’ perceptions of the effect-
iveness of the learning methods that are used at their institutions or conducting the same study in dif-
ferent cities in Saudi Arabia with higher response rate. In addition, future research should consider
physicians [surgeons] as a population to determine the effectiveness of the methods used in their
institutions.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank all participants for their responses and cooperation. Moreover, the authors would like to acknow-
ledge the anatomists (Dr. Juman Almusaed, Dr. Bader Khawaji, and Dr. Nagi Bakhit) and the medical educator (Dr.
Sabina Ahmed) for helping us build and validate the questionnaire.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

About the authors

Malak A. Alghamdi assistant professor of Anatomy at College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University for Health
Sciences.
Reem Bu Saeed assistant professor of Anatomy at College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University for Health
Sciences.
Waad Fudhah, Danah Alqarnia, Shahad Albarzan, and Sheifa Alamoudi Medical students at College of Medicine,
King Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences.
Muhammad Anwar Khan Lecturer of Medical Education at College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University for Health
Sciences.

References
Abdullah, E., Lone, M., Cray, J. J., Dvoracek, P., & Balta, J. Y. (2021). Medical students’ opinions of anatomy teaching
resources and their role in achieving learning outcomes. Medical Science Educator, 31(6), 1903–1910. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40670-021-01436-2
Alhassan, A., & Majeed, S. (2018). Perception of Ghanaian medical students of cadaveric dissection in a problem-
based learning curriculum. Anatomy Research International, 2018, 3868204. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3868204
Al-Mohrej, O. A., Al-Ayedh, N. K., Masuadi, E. M., & Al-Kenani, N. S. (2017). Learning methods and strategies of anat-
omy among medical students in two different Institutions in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Medical Teacher, 39(sup1), S15–
S21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1254737
Almulhem, M. A., & Almulhem, J. A. (2022). Evaluation of Problem-Based Learning implementation in a College of
Medicine, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a cross sectional comparative study. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 311.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03347-1
Azer, S. A., & Eizenberg, N. (2007). Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course?
Perceptions of first-and second-year students. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy: SRA, 29(2), 173–180. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00276-007-0180-x
Balta, J. Y., Cronin, M., Cryan, J. F., & O’Mahony, S. M. (2017). The utility of cadaver-based approaches for the teach-
ing of human anatomy: A survey of British and Irish anatomy teachers. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10(2), 137–
143. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1629
Bandyopadhyay, R., & Biswas, R. (2017). Students’ perception and attitude on methods of anatomy teaching in a
medical college of West Bengal, India. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR, 11(9), AC10–AC14. https://
doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/26112.10666
Chapman, S. J., Hakeem, A. R., Marangoni, G., & Prasad, K. R. (2013). Anatomy in medical education: Perceptions of
undergraduate medical students. Annals of Anatomy ¼ Anatomischer Anzeiger: Official Organ of the Anatomische
Gesellschaft, 195(5), 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2013.03.005
Cowan, M., Arain, N. N., Assale, T. S., Assi, A. H., Albar, R. A., & Ganguly, P. K. (2010). Student-centered integrated
anatomy resource sessions at Alfaisal University. Anatomical Sciences Education, 3(5), 272–275. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ase.176
10 M. A. ALGHAMDI ET AL.

Davis, C. R., Bates, A. S., Ellis, H., & Roberts, A. M. (2014). Human anatomy: Let the students tell us how to teach.
Anatomical Sciences Education, 7(4), 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1424
Dissabandara, L. O., Nirthanan, S. N., Khoo, T. K., & Tedman, R. (2015). Role of cadaveric dissections in modern med-
ical curricula: A study on student perceptions. Anatomy & Cell Biology, 48(3), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.
2015.48.3.205
Eppler, E., Serowy, S., Link, K., & Filgueira, L. (2018). Experience from an optional dissection course in a clinically ori-
entated concept to complement system-based anatomy in a reformed curriculum. Anatomical Sciences Education,
11(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1707
Estai, M., & Bunt, S. (2016). Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Annals of
Anatomy ¼ Anatomischer Anzeiger: Official Organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft, 208, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aanat.2016.02.010
Evans, E. J., & Fitzgibbon, G. H. (1992). The dissecting room: Reactions of first year medical students. Clinical
Anatomy, 5(4), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.980050408
Horne, D. J., Tiller, J. W., Eizenberg, N., Tashevska, M., & Biddle, N. (1990). Reactions of first-year medical students to
their initial encounter with a cadaver in the dissecting room. Academic Medicine: journal of the Association of
American Medical Colleges, 65(10), 645–646. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199010000-00011
Jaiswal, R., Sathe, S., Gajbhiye, V., & Sathe, R. (2015). Students perception on methods of anatomy teaching and
assessment.
Mwachaka, P., Saidi, H., & Mandela, P. (2016). Is cadaveric dissection vital in anatomy education? Perceptions of 1st
and 2nd year medical students. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Anatomy, 15(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.4103/
1596-2393.190822
Nnodim, J. O. (1996). Preclinical student reactions to dissection, death, and dying. Clinical Anatomy, 9(3), 175–182.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(1996)9:3<175::AID-CA9>3.0.CO;2-F
Sarabi-Asiabar, A., Jafari, M., Sadeghifar, J., Tofighi, S., Zaboli, R., Peyman, H., Salimi, M., & Shams, L. (2015). The rela-
tionship between learning style preferences and gender, educational major and status in first year medical stu-
dents: A survey study from Iran. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 17(1), e18250. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.
18250
Shaffer, K. (2004). Teaching anatomy in the digital world. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351(13), 1279–1281.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048100
Singh, K., Bharatha, A., Sa, B., Adams, O. P., & Majumder, M. A. A. (2019). Teaching anatomy using an active and
engaging learning strategy. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1590-2 PMID:
31096975; PMCID: PMC6524257.
Sugand, K., Abrahams, P., & Khurana, A. (2010). Mar The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization.
Anatomical Sciences Education, 3(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.139
Tayyem, R., Qandeel, H., Qsous, G., Badran, D., & Bani-Hani, K. (2019). Medical students perception of current under-
graduate anatomy teaching. International Journal of Morphology, 37(3), 825–829. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-
95022019000300825
Thorat, C. G., & Jadhav, B. D. (2010). A blind digital watermark technique for color image based on integer wavelet
transform and SIFT. Procedia Computer Science, 2, 236–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2010.11.030
Triepels, C. P., Koppes, D. M., Van Kuijk, S. M., Popeijus, H. E., Lamers, W. H., Van Gorp, T., Futterer, J. J., Kruitwagen,
R. F., & Notten, K. J. (2018). Medical students’ perspective on training in anatomy. Annals of
Anatomy ¼ Anatomischer Anzeiger: official Organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft, 217, 60–65. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aanat.2018.01.006