The Recognition and Need of Medical Student on Peer Review in Cadaver Dissection

Jeong-Jun Jo; Seong-Woo Kang; Seung-Joon Lee; Soo-Jung Jung; Jae-Ho Lee

doi:10.11637/aba.2019.32.3.109

Journal List > Anat Biol Anthropol > v.32(3) > 1137295

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jo, Kang, Lee, Jung, and Lee: The Recognition and Need of Medical Student on Peer Review in Cadaver Dissection

Original Article

Anat Biol Anthropol 2019;32(3):109-113.

Published online: 20 January 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11637/aba.2019.32.3.109

The Recognition and Need of Medical Student on Peer Review in Cadaver Dissection

Jeong-Jun Jo^1∗, Seong-Woo Kang^1∗, Seung-Joon Lee^1∗, Soo-Jung Jung², Jae-Ho Lee²

¹Medical Course, School of Medicine, Keimyung University

²Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Keimyung University

Received 14 March 2019 Revised 15 August 2019 Accepted 20 August 2019

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Peer review in dissection is a good evaluation method that allows students not only to recognize professional behavior of peers, but also to look back on themselves. The purpose of this study is to analyze the recognition and feelings of students about peer review in dissection and to use peer review more effectively. In this study, it was to examine the reflection on grades of peer review, the improvement on attitude of dissection by peer review, and the reliability of peer review, also, additionally necessary subjects, the method of peer review, the emotions of students during the peer review. As a result of the questionnaire survey, the necessity about reflection of peer review (48, 67.6%), the improvement on attitude of dissection (41, 57.7%) and the reliability of peer review (30, 44.1%) were positive. Moreover, many students asked additionally necessary subjects not to be required except for anatomy (42, 67.7%). In the questionnaire on the method of peer review, to select students who have been good and bad in the practice is best (34 students, 57.6%). In the questionnaire for emotions of students during the peer review, “bad” was the most common (25, 39.7%), and the average value was about 2.7 in the 5 scale. There is a limitation to utilize peer review as an evaluation method of anatomy education. Therefore, much more effort is needed to improve the utilization of peer review and the professor should support the emotions of students during the peer review.

Keywords: Anatomical education, Cadaver dissection, Peer review, Medical education, Emotion

References

1. Hong HJ, Yoon SP. The relationship between academic achievements and curricular changes on anatomy based on basic medical education examination. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2016; 29:105–12.

2. Choi GY, Kim JM, Seo JH, Sohn HJ. Becoming a doctor through learning anatomy-narrative analysis of the educational experience. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2009; 22:213–24.

3. Smith SF, Mathias HS. What impact does anatomy education have on clinical practice? Clin Anat. 2011; 24:113–9.

4. Ward PJ, Walker JJ. The influence of study methods and knowledge processing on academic success and longterm recall of anatomy learning by first-year veterinary students. Anat Sci Educ. 2008; 1:68–74.

5. Oh SA, Chung EK, Rhee JA, Baik YH. An evaluation of integrated curriculum based on students'perspective. Korean J Med Educ. 2007; 19:305–11.

6. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ. 2010; 3:83–93.

7. Kim H, Shin D. Representation method of info graphic image telling – Focusing on the peirce's semiotics. Semiotic Inquiry. 2014; 39:403–38.

8. Arnold L, Shue CK, Kritt B, Ginsburg S, Stern DT. Medical students'views on peer assessment of professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2005; 20:819–24.

9. Camp CL, Gregory JK, Lachman N, Chen LP, Juskewitch JE, Pawlina W. Comparative efficacy of group and individual feedback in gross anatomy for promoting medical student professionalism. Anat Sci Educ. 2010; 3:64–72.

10. Bryan RE, Krych AJ, Carmichael SW, Viggiano TR, Pawlina W. Assessing professionalism in early medical education: Experience with peer evaluation and self-evaluation in the gross anatomy course. Ann Acad Med Sing. 2005; 34:486–91.

11. Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. New Eng J Med. 2007; 356:387–96.

12. Kam BS, Kim MJ, Joo SI, Yune SJ, Im SJ, Lee SY, et al. Relationship of peer- and self assessments in the anatomy laboratory and academic performance of gross anatomy. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2018; 31:1–7.

13. Ferris H, O'Flynn D. Assessment in medical education: What are we trying to achieve? Int J Higher Educ. 2015; 4:139–44.

14. Swick HM, Szenas P, Danoff D, Whitcomb ME. Teaching professionalism in undergraduate medical education. JAMA. 1999; 282:830–2.

15. Cruess RL, Cruess SR. Expectations and obligations: Professionalism and medicine'social contract with society. Perspect Biol Med. 2008; 51:579–98.

16. Eva KW. Assessing tutorial-based assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2001; 6:243–57.

17. Heylings DJ, Stefani LAJ. Peer assessment feedback marking in a large medical anatomy class. Med Educ. 1997; 31:281–6.

18. Magzoub ME, Schmidt HG, Dolmans D. Assessing students in community settings: the role of peer evaluation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1998; 3:3–13.

19. Greenbaum DS, Hoban JD. Teaching peer review at Michigan State University. J Med Educ. 1976; 51:392–5.

20. Van Rosendaal GM, Jennett PA. Comparing peer and faculty evaluations in an internal medicine residency. Acad Med. 1994; 69:299–303.

21. Morton JB, Macbeth WAAG. Correlations between staff, peer and self assessments of fourth-year students in surgery. Med Educ. 1977; 11:167–70.

22. Kim JY, Son HJ, Lee JH, Kim JH, Hong KP. Educational implication of peer evaluation in problem-based learning. Korean J Med Educ. 2005; 17:275–84.

Fig. 1.

The additionally necessary subjects.

Fig. 2.

The scale of emotion which students have been felt during the peer review.

Table 1.

The results of the questionnaire survey about the reflection on grades, the improvement on the attitude of dissection, and the reliability

	Positive	Usually	Negative
	(N, %)	(N, %)	(N, %)
Reflection on grades	48	8	15
Reflection on grades	48(67.6%)	8(11.3%)	15(21.1%)
Improvement on the attitude of dissection	41	11	19
Improvement on the attitude of dissection	(57.7%)	(15.5%)	(26.8%)
Reliability	30	15	24
Reliability	30(44.1%)	15(22.1%)	24(33.8%)

Table. 2

The method of peer review.

	N (%)
Do not implement peer reviews	6 (10.2)
Select a good student	9 (15.3)
Select a bad student	7 (11.9)
Select good and bad students	34 (57.6)
Other opinion	3 (5.1)

TOOLS

Similar articles