Int. J. Morphol.

,
38(1):74-77, 2020.

Evaluation of Performance and Perception of Learning in

Teaching Human Anatomy: Traditional Method vs
Constructivist Method

Evaluación del Rendimiento y la Percepción del Aprendizaje en la Enseñanza

de la Anatomía Humana: Método Tradicional versus Método Constructivista

Roger W. S. Vitorino1; Célia Cristina Fornaziero1 & Eduardo Vignoto Fernandes1,2

VITORINO, R. W. S. ; FORNAZIERO, C. C. & FERNANDES, E. V. Evaluation of performance and perception of learning in

teaching human anatomy: traditional method vs constructivist method. Int. J. Morphol., 38(1):74-77, 2020.

SUMMARY: The aim of the present study was to analyze the performance and perception of learning in relation to the Traditional
Method (TM) and Constructivist Method (CM) in the teaching of Human Anatomy. The sample consisted of 76 students of the Physical
Education course of the State University of Londrina, randomly distributed into two groups: TM and CM. The TM group received
theoretical-expository and practical classes. The CM group was taken to the laboratory for practical classes and the participants of this
class were allocated in up to seven per work table. Didactic materials and cadaveric parts were made available for consultation. After
both intervention methods, the groups performed an evaluation on the studied content. The following week, a crossover was performed
between the groups and, after the intervention, all participants were again evaluated. Before being given the outcome of their evaluations,
participants were asked to answer questions about their perception of learning in relation to the above-mentioned methods. After the
analysis, it was verified that the TM group obtained better results in the tests when compared to the CM group. In addition, according to
students' perceptions, TM also favored learning more than CM. Therefore, it was evidenced in the present study that the traditional
method was more favorable both for the quantitative performance and learning perception of the participants.

KEY WORDS: Active learning; Passive learning; Lecture; Teaching practices.

INTRODUCTION

Human Anatomy is considered one of the oldest constructivist method (CM) (Anderton et al., 2016; Lee
medical sciences. Although it is a classical science, it & Hannafin, 2016).
continues to present great relevance in the training of
university students in health areas, as professionals will Currently, active methodologies are widely used
use this knowledge in their practical activities (Ruzycki in the teaching of Human Anatomy (Estai & Bunt).
et al., 2019). In this context, research has been carried out Nevertheless, it has been verified that for the Anatomy
with the aim of verifying the best teaching-learning and Human Physiology disciplines, teaching through TM
strategy in Human Anatomy (Estai & Bunt, 2016; Clunie continues to present better results and greater preference
et al., 2018; Sotgiu et al., 2019; Zilverschoon et al., 2019). by students (Gogalniceanu et al., 2010; Davis et al.,
2014). This information is linked to the fact that
There is a discussion about the relationship between academics generally obtain better quantitative results
passive methodologies: where the teacher is the active (Anderton et al.).
subject in the teaching-learning process, for example, the
traditional method (TM), also known as didactic lecture; However, there is still little research comparing ac-
and active methodologies, where the student is the active tive and passive methodologies using randomized research
subject in the teaching-learning process and the teacher in conjunction with crossover between participants (Clunie
acts as a facilitating agent, guiding the students to seek et al.). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to
and generate their own knowledge, for example, the analyze the performance and perception of learning in

1
Department of Anatomy, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
2
Universidade Federal de Goiás - Regional Jataí, Jataí, Goiás, Brazil.

74
VITORINO, R. W. S. ; FORNAZIERO, C. C. & FERNANDES, E. V. Evaluation of performance and perception of learning in teaching human anatomy: traditional method vs constructivist method.
Int. J. Morphol., 38(1):74-77, 2020.

relation to the Traditional Method and Constructivist test. For evaluation of categorical variables, Fisher's exact
Method in the teaching of Human Anatomy. test was used. The association between the students'
perception of learning in the methodologies was evaluated
by the Odds Ratio (OR) with a Confidence Interval (CI)
MATERIAL AND METHOD of 95 %. Statistical analyzes were performed using the
GraphPad Prism 6.0 statistical package, with a minimum
significance index of p<0.05.
Participants: The sample consisted of 76 students of the
Physical Education course of the State University of
Londrina, Paraná, Brazil. Recruitment occurred voluntarily RESULTS
during Human Anatomy classes and the volunteers signed
the free and informed consent term. The work was
approved by the Ethics Committee on Human Beings of Figure 1 presents the performance of the students in
UEL (proc. CAAE: 79469417.4.0000.5231), a cross- relation to TM and CM. It can be observed that TM resulted
sectional study. in better student performance when compared to CM,
p<0.0001.
Procedures: Participants were randomly assigned to two
groups: Traditional Method (TM) and Constructivism Regarding the perception of learning, it was verified
Method (CM). The TM group attended a theoretical lecture that TM was more favorable than CM (effect size, 31.5 %),
for 50 minutes (with PowerPoint) and a practical class for that is, 62 students classified their learning as excellent/good
50 minutes (in the Human Anatomy laboratory with when they performed TM, while only 38 students reported
previously dissected cadaveric parts). their learning as excellent/good when they performed CM.
Statistical significance association between “How would you
In relation to the CM group, the participants were rate your learning?” and TM was observed (Table I).
taken to the Human Anatomy laboratory and distributed
in groups of up to seven students per worktable for 100 When asked whether TM or CM contributed to
minutes, the same TM structures. They received an improving learning, most participants answered yes for TM
instruction script prepared by the teachers, as well as a (effect size, 26.3 %), that is, 72 of the individuals in the TM
textbook, atlas of Anatomy, and previously dissected group, while only 52 answered yes for CM. Statistical
cadaveric parts. The students were required to identify, in significance association between “Did the method used
the corpse, the structures described in the script and contribute to improving your learning?” and TM was
whenever they had doubts, they could request assistance observed (Table I).
from the teacher.

In the second part of the study, the crossover

occurred so that all students participated in both methods.
In both times, the content addressed was the muscular
system (upper limb in first week and lower limb second
week of study). In the first and second (cross over)
intervention, independently of the group, immediately after
the methods were performed, the participants carried out
an evaluation on the content worked on. After completing
this evaluation, the students answered two questions about
their perception of learning (without prior knowledge of
the results of their evaluations), adapted according to Mota
et al. (2010). Question 1: How would you rate your
learning?; Question 2: Did the method used contribute to
improving your learning.
Fig. 1. Comparison between the traditional method
and the constructivist method in relation to student
Initially, the quantitative data were submitted to the performance. The Mann-Whitney test was used to
Shapiro-Wilk normality test. After verifying that the data compare the groups, p<0.05. TM, traditional method
did not present normality, the comparison between the TM (n=76); CM, constructivism method (n=76). *, CM
and CM groups was performed using the Mann-Whitney different from TM.

75
VITORINO, R. W. S. ; FORNAZIERO, C. C. & FERNANDES, E. V. Evaluation of performance and perception of learning in teaching human anatomy: traditional method vs constructivist method.
Int. J. Morphol., 38(1):74-77, 2020.

Table I. Association between teaching methods and students' perception of learning.

Questions TM (n=76) CM (n=76) OR (95% CI) p*
How would you rate your learning?
Excellent/Good 62 38
4.42 (2.12 - 9.22) 0.0001
Regular/Bad 14 38
Did the method used contribute to
improving your learning?
Yes 72 52
8.30 (2.71 - 25.39) 0.0001
No 4 24
TM: traditional method; CM: constructivist method; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; *Fisher’s exact test.

DISCUSSION combine the use of passive and active methodologies, a

circumstance that could broaden the teaching-learning
process (Maphosa & Ndebele, 2014).
The present study evaluated the performance and
learning perception of students of the Physical Education Although there is a demand for innovations in
course through TM and CM in the discipline of Human teaching methodologies, Anderton et al. demonstrate that
Anatomy. Regarding TM, it was verified that the students TM is still maintained in the curricula of the courses of health
presented better performance in the quantitative evaluations sciences, mainly for the discipline of Human Anatomy. This
and, according to their perceptions, also experienced greater situation can be justified by the fact that people are
learning. accustomed to TM and initiating new teaching proposals
that would not necessarily be more effective creates difficulty
This can be explained by the fact that educational for both teachers and students.
institutions, in general, use the traditional method in their
curricula, from primary to higher education (Lee & Nowadays, technological advances have generated
Hannafin). As a result, university students find it difficult to many subsidies for teaching. In this sense, there is growing
assimilate new teaching proposals. Thus, it is recommended consensus that combinations between technological and
that students newly enrolled in higher education (habituated pedagogical resources can provide benefits to the perfor-
to passive methodologies) be introduced to active mance and, consequently, the learning of the students in the
methodologies before they are effectively applied (Davis et teaching of Human Anatomy (Lochner et al., 2016; Trelease,
al.). This did not happen in the present study, in which 2016; Oliveira et al., 2019; Sotgiu et al.). This condition is
participants were submitted to CM without previous reported by students, who demonstrate that they benefit more
familiarization. from the traditional method when it is accompanied by
complementary pedagogical resources, e.g., synthetic
With respect to the perception of learning, the fact that models, virtual reality (3D visualization), and multimodal
the students prefer TM, instead of CM, may be related to the approaches (Papa & Vaccarezza, 2013; Estai & Bunt;
difficulty students have in distinguishing the key concepts Ruzycki et al.). Thus, integration of the traditional method
from the studied content. In TM, the responsibility to process with technological resources could be an alternative to
the pertinent contents of the discipline comes from the teacher; enhance the teaching of Human Anatomy.
the students do not need to develop autonomy of study, a fact
that generates insecurity in the student (Lee & Hannafin). Although the traditional method presented a
perspective of better acceptance by the investigated sample.
Davis et al. report that students point out that new In view of the above, we conclude that that the traditional
teaching strategies should always be tested and developed, method was more favorable both for the quantitative per-
however, TM should not stop being the basis of the formance and learning perception of the participants.
curriculum, as, in addition to resulting in better use of disci-
plines, students admit to feeling more secure when learning
the content taught by the teacher. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Therefore, research in the field of teaching pedagogy

does not classify a method as the best or the worst, but rather, This work was supported by Fundação Araucaria
as the most appropriate for a given content, discipline, or (Scientific Initiation Program fellowship to RWSV, order
class (Estai & Bunt). Thus, the teacher should be able to number: 11182).
76
VITORINO, R. W. S. ; FORNAZIERO, C. C. & FERNANDES, E. V. Evaluation of performance and perception of learning in teaching human anatomy: traditional method vs constructivist method.
Int. J. Morphol., 38(1):74-77, 2020.

VITORINO, R. W. S. ; FORNAZIERO, C. C. & FERNANDES, Mota, M. F.; da Mata, F. R. & Aversi-Ferreira, T. A. Constructivist pedagogic
method used in the teaching of human anatomy. Int. J. Morphol.,
E. V. Evaluación del rendimiento y la percepción del aprendizaje
28(2):369-74, 2010.
en la enseñanza de la anatomía humana: método tradicional versus Oliveira, M.; Geambastiani, P.; Lopez, G.; Cambui, M.; Ubeda, C. &
método constructivista. Int. J. Morphol., 38(1):74-77, 2020. Mdletshe, S. The development of a free radiological anatomy software
teaching tool. Int. J. Morphol., 37(1):205-11, 2019.
RESUMEN: El objetivo del presente estudio fue analizar Papa, V. & Vaccarezza, M. Teaching anatomy in the XXI century: new
el rendimiento y la percepción del aprendizaje en relación con el aspects and pitfalls. Sci. World J., 2013:310348, 2013.
Método Tradicional (MT) y el Método Constructivista (MC) en la Ruzycki, S.; Desy, J. R.; Lachman, N. & Wolanskyj-Spinner, A. P. Medical
enseñanza de la Anatomía Humana. La muestra consistió en 76 education for millennials: How anatomists are doing it right. Clin. Anat.,
32(1):20-5, 2019.
estudiantes del curso de Educación Física de la Universidad Esta-
Sotgiu, M. A.; Mazzarello, V.; Bandiera, P.; Madeddu, R.; Montella, A. &
tal de Londrina, distribuidos aleatoriamente en dos grupos: MT y Moxham, B. Neuroanatomy, the Achille’s heel of medical students. A
MC. El grupo MT recibió clases teórico-expositivas y prácticas. systematic analysis of educational strategies for the teaching of
El grupo MC fue llevado al laboratorio para clases prácticas y los neuroanatomy. Anat. Sci. Educ., 2019. doi: 10.1002/ase.1866. In press.
participantes de esta clase fueron asignados en hasta siete por mesa Trelease, R. B. From chalkboard, slides, and paper to e-learning: How
de trabajo. Los materiales didácticos y las piezas cadavéricas se computing technologies have transformed anatomical sciences
pusieron a disposición para consulta. Después de ambos métodos education. Anat. Sci. Educ., 9(6):583-602, 2016.
de intervención, los grupos realizaron una evaluación del conteni- Zilverschoon, M.; Kotte, E. M. G.; van Esch, B.; Ten Cate, O.; Custers, E.
J. & Bleys, R. L. A. W. Comparing the critical features of e-applications
do estudiado. La semana siguiente, se realizó un cruce entre los
for three-dimensional anatomy education. Ann. Anat., 222:28-39, 2019.
grupos y, después de la intervención, todos los participantes fue-
ron evaluados nuevamente. Antes de recibir el resultado de sus
evaluaciones, se les pidió a los participantes que respondieran pre-
guntas sobre su percepción del aprendizaje en relación con los
métodos mencionados anteriormente. Después del análisis, se ve- Corresponding author:
rificó que el grupo MT obtuvo mejores resultados en las pruebas Dr. Eduardo Vignoto Fernandes
en comparación con el grupo MC. Además, según las percepcio- Laboratório de de Anatomia Humana e Comparativa
nes de los estudiantes, MT también favoreció el aprendizaje más Universidade Federal de Goiás - Regional Jataí
que MC. Por lo tanto, se evidenció en el presente estudio que el Rodovia BR 364, km 195, nº 3800
método tradicional era más favorable tanto para el rendimiento Campus Jatobá
cuantitativo como para la percepción del aprendizaje de los parti- CEP 75801-615
cipantes. Jataí
Goiás
PALABRAS CLAVE: Aprendizaje activo; Aprendiza- BRAZIL
je pasivo; Conferencia; Prácticas docentes.

Email: eduardovignoto@[Link]
eduardovignotofernandes@[Link]
REFERENCES

Anderton, R. S.; Chiu, L. S. & Aulfrey, S. Student perceptions to teaching Received: 30-05-2019
undergraduate anatomy in health sciences. Int. J. High. Educ., 5(3):201- Accepted: 24-07-2019
16, 2016.
Clunie, L.; Morris, N.; Joynes, V. C. T. & Pickering, J. D. How
comprehensive are research studies investigating the efficacy of
technology-enhanced learning resources in anatomy education? A
systematic review. Anat. Sci. Educ., 11(3):303-19, 2018.
Davis, C. R.; Bates, A. S.; Ellis, H. & Roberts, A. M. Human anatomy: let
the students tell us how to teach. Anat. Sci. Educ., 7(4):262-72, 2014.
Estai, M. & Bunt, S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical
review. Ann. Anat., 208:151-7, 2016.
Gogalniceanu, P.; Palman, J.; Madani, H.; Sheena, Y.; Birch, W.; Paraskeva,
P. & Douek, M. Traditional undergraduate anatomy education--a
contemporary taboo? A. N. Z. J. Surg., 80(1-2):6-7, 2010.
Lee, E. & Hannafin, M. J. A design framework for enhancing engagement
in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it. Educ. Technol.
Res. Dev., 64(4):707-34, 2016.
Lochner, L.; Wieser, H.; Waldboth, S. & Mischo-Kelling, M. Combining
traditional anatomy lectures with e-learning activities: how do students
perceive their learning experience?. Int. J. Med. Educ., 7:69-74, 2016.
Maphosa, C. & Ndebele, C. Interrogating the skill of introducing a lecture:
towards an interactive lecture method of instruction. Anthropologist,
17(2):543-50, 2014.

77
Copyright of International Journal of Morphology is the property of Sociedad Chilena de
Anatomia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.