{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0180064308681672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013504823151125401, 'mean_word_length': 5.824561403508772, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Computer‐Assisted Instruction Versus Traditional Instruction in Teaching Human Gross Anatomy

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine whether first‐year entry‐level students in a physical therapy master's degree program who were taught human gross anatomy by traditional instruction methods showed a significant difference in their level of gross anatomy subject knowledge from those taught by the use of lecture, computer‐assisted instruction (CAI), and prosected cadavers. An ex post facto design was utilized to compare outcomes of 48 entry‐level physical therapy master's degree students in 1996 and 1997 using CAI and prosections with outcomes of 102 entry‐level physical therapy master's degree students in 1996 and 1997 using traditional cadaver dissection in learning human gross anatomy. The same instructor taught each group. Four written examinations, five practical examinations, and final course grades were analyzed to determine whether there was any significant difference in subject knowledge gained between groups. This investigator found that there was no significant difference between groups on subject knowledge gained in human gross anatomy as determined by the four written examinations, five practical examinations, and final grades for each course. The findings support evidence from the fields of medicine, nursing, and other allied health professions that the use of CAI and prosections is as effective as traditional dissection in teaching human gross anatomy to first‐year entry‐level physical therapist students.