ArticleAnatomical sciences education2023
Dyad pedagogy in practical anatomy: A description of the implementation and student perceptions of an adaptive approach to cadaveric teaching.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical students' examinations during the pandemic: Performance and perceptions of anatomy teaching and learning before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdowns.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- A scoping review of teaching approaches and learning objectives for anatomical variation in gross anatomy courses across degree programs.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
- Optimizing short-term in-class process evaluation: analyzing the effectiveness of teaching interventions in pharmaceutical education using repeated measures analysis.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Dyad pedagogy in practical anatomy: A description of the implementation and student perceptions of an adaptive approach to cadaveric teaching.Anatomical sciences education · 2023Article
- Student perceptions of handover diaries and reflective learning in an undergraduate MBChB anatomy course.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior to the challenges imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, anatomy practical sessions at Trinity College Dublin involved eight to 10 students per donor station, rotating between digital learning, anatomical models/osteology, and dissection activities for three hours weekly. To maintain cadaveric participation in the anatomy laboratory while adhering to distancing guidelines, a transition to dyad pedagogy was implemented. This mode of delivery allowed two students per donor station to spend one hour per week in the anatomy laboratory with all digital learning elements transferred to the virtual learning platform Blackboard as pre- and post-practical session learning activities. Dyad pedagogy has been explored in clinical settings and simulation procedural-based training but is yet to be fully verified in anatomy education. To determine the effectiveness of hybrid practical sessions and reduced donor to student ratios, the opinions of first year medical students were examined using an online questionnaire with a 51% response rate. Although students recognized the merits of more time in the anatomy laboratory, including opportunities for self-directed study and exposure to anatomical variation, they felt that having two students per station enabled sufficient hands-on time with the donor body and fostered learning opportunities that would not be possible with larger groups. Strong preferences for quality time with the donor body supported by online resources suggests this modality should be a key consideration in course design for anatomy curricula and emphasizes the importance of gauging students' preferences to optimize satisfaction and learning output when pivoting to blended learning strategies in anatomy education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.