The study of human anatomy has long been a cornerstone of medical education, serving as the foundation upon which all subsequent knowledge of medicine is built. Traditionally, anatomy has been taught through dissection and lectures, providing students with a hands-on, tactile experience that enables a deep understanding of the human body's structure. However, with the advent of new technologies and teaching methodologies, modern approaches such as digital simulations, 3D modeling, and interactive multimedia have become increasingly prevalent. These contemporary methods offer distinct advantages, including accessibility, repeatability, and the ability to visualize complex structures in ways that were previously impossible.1-4

At the Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, the evolving landscape of anatomy education presents a unique opportunity to assess the effectiveness of these traditional and modern teaching methods. Despite the widespread adoption of new technologies, there remains a debate within the academic community regarding the most effective approach for fostering long-term knowledge retention among medical students. Traditional methods, particularly cadaveric dissection, are praised for providing a tangible, immersive learning experience that fosters a deep, comprehensive understanding of human anatomy. Conversely, modern techniques are lauded for their ability to engage students through interactive and visually rich content, potentially enhancing learning outcomes and retention.

The shift towards modern teaching methods is driven by several factors, including the scarcity of cadaveric specimens, ethical considerations, and the logistical challenges associated with maintaining dissection laboratories. Furthermore, the current generation of students, often termed "digital natives," may find digital tools more aligned with their learning preferences. Yet, the efficacy of these methods in comparison to traditional approaches, particularly in the context of long-term knowledge retention, remains under-explored.4-7

This research aims to bridge this gap by conducting a comparative study on the effectiveness of traditional versus modern anatomy teaching methods at the Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences. Specifically, the study seeks to evaluate which approach better supports knowledge retention among medical students, thereby informing future curriculum development and teaching strategies. The findings of this study have the potential to significantly impact how anatomy is taught, ensuring that medical education continues to evolve in a way that best prepares students for their future roles as healthcare providers.

In light of the growing reliance on modern educational tools, it is crucial to critically assess whether these methods can truly replace or enhance the learning experiences offered by traditional practices. This study, therefore, not only contributes to the ongoing discourse on educational methodologies but also seeks to provide evidence-based recommendations that can be implemented at the Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences and beyond. By rigorously comparing the outcomes associated with traditional and modern approaches, this research will offer valuable insights into the most effective strategies for teaching anatomy in the 21st century.

This comparative study was conducted at the Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, with the objective of evaluating the impact of traditional versus modern anatomy teaching methods on medical students' knowledge retention. The study was meticulously designed to ensure rigorous data collection and analysis, thereby providing robust and reliable findings.

Study Design

This research employed a quasi-experimental design with two distinct groups of medical students. The participants were first-year medical students enrolled in the MBBS program at the Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences. The study was conducted over the course of one academic semester, ensuring sufficient time for both teaching interventions and subsequent assessments of knowledge retention.

Participant Selection

A total of 120 students were included in the study, selected through stratified random sampling to ensure that both groups were comparable in terms of academic background, gender, and prior exposure to anatomy. The students were randomly assigned into two groups:

• Group A (n = 60): This group was taught using traditional methods, which included cadaveric dissection, didactic lectures, and textbook-based learning.
• Group B (n = 60): This group was taught using modern methods, including digital anatomy platforms, 3D modeling software, and interactive multimedia resources.

Both groups received the same content covering the fundamental aspects of human anatomy, ensuring that the only variable was the teaching method.

Teaching Interventions

Traditional Teaching Methods (Group A):

The traditional teaching approach involved a combination of cadaveric dissection, where students engaged in hands-on dissection of human cadavers, and didactic lectures delivered by experienced faculty members. Textbooks and atlases were used as supplementary resources. Dissections were performed in small groups under the guidance of an instructor, allowing for direct interaction with the anatomical structures. Lectures provided the theoretical background, while the dissection sessions offered practical experience and reinforcement of the concepts learned.

Modern Teaching Methods (Group B):

The modern teaching approach utilized advanced technological tools to teach anatomy. This included digital anatomy software that provided 3D models of human anatomy, allowing students to explore and manipulate anatomical structures virtually. Interactive multimedia resources, including videos and animations, were used to demonstrate physiological processes and anatomical relationships. Additionally, virtual dissection tools were employed to simulate the dissection experience. The students in this group had access to these digital tools both in the classroom and remotely, enabling repeated and self-paced learning.

Assessment of Knowledge Retention

To assess the effectiveness of the teaching methods, two main assessments were conducted:

1.Immediate Post-Teaching Assessment:

• After the completion of the teaching intervention, both groups were administered a standardized written test comprising multiple-choice questions (MCQs), short-answer questions (SAQs), and identification tasks based on anatomical models or images. This test aimed to evaluate the students' immediate knowledge acquisition and understanding of the material taught.

2.Delayed Post-Teaching Assessment:

• To assess long-term knowledge retention, a second test was administered three months after the initial intervention. This test was similar in format to the immediate assessment but was designed to measure how well the students retained the anatomical knowledge over time without further instruction.

Both assessments were carefully designed and validated by a panel of anatomy experts to ensure they accurately reflected the learning objectives of the course and were free from bias.

Data Analysis

The data collected from the assessments were analyzed using statistical software. The primary outcome measure was the difference in test scores between the two groups, both immediately after teaching and after the three-month retention period. Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation, were calculated for each group's test scores.

To compare the effectiveness of the two teaching methods, an independent t-test was used to analyze the differences in mean scores between Group A and Group B for both the immediate and delayed assessments. Additionally, a paired t-test was conducted within each group to assess the change in scores between the immediate and delayed assessments, providing insights into the retention rate within each teaching method.

A significance level of p < 0.05 was set for all statistical tests, ensuring that the results were robust and reliable. The results were further analyzed to determine any correlation between demographic variables (such as gender, previous academic performance) and the test scores, using Pearson correlation coefficients.

Ethical Considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set forth by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study. The anonymity and confidentiality of the participants were maintained throughout the study, and the data were used solely for research purposes. The participants were also assured that their involvement in the study would not affect their academic evaluations.

The results of this study provide a comprehensive comparison between traditional and modern anatomy teaching methods, highlighting their impact on immediate learning outcomes, long-term knowledge retention, and student satisfaction.

The demographic characteristics of the participants were carefully assessed to ensure that the two groups—those taught using traditional methods (Group A) and those using modern methods (Group B)—were comparable. The groups were nearly identical in terms of gender distribution, mean age, and previous academic performance. Group A consisted of 53.3% males and 46.7% females, while Group B comprised 51.7% males and 48.3% females. The mean age of participants in both groups was around 19 years, with no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Previous academic performance was also similar, with Group A having a mean score of 75.2% and Group B 75.8%, further confirming that the groups were well-matched demographically, ensuring the validity of the comparative analysis.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants

In the immediate post-teaching assessment, students taught using modern methods (Group B) consistently outperformed those taught using traditional methods (Group A) across all assessment types. Group B achieved higher mean scores in multiple-choice questions (76.3 vs. 72.5), short-answer questions (74.8 vs. 70.2), and identification tasks (73.5 vs. 68.9). The total mean score for Group B was significantly higher than for Group A (74.9 vs. 70.5), with all differences being statistically significant (p < 0.05). These results suggest that modern teaching methods are more effective in enhancing students' immediate understanding and retention of anatomical knowledge.

Table 2: Immediate Post-Teaching Assessment Scores

    *Note: * indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05).

The delayed post-teaching assessment, conducted three months after the initial teaching sessions, further underscored the effectiveness of modern teaching methods. Group B continued to outperform Group A, with higher mean scores in MCQs (70.1 vs. 65.8), SAQs (68.9 vs. 63.5), and identification tasks (67.2 vs. 61.4). The total mean score for Group B was 68.7, compared to 63.6 for Group A, with all differences being statistically significant (p < 0.05). These findings indicate that the benefits of modern teaching methods extend beyond immediate learning, leading to better long-term retention of anatomical knowledge.

Table 3: Delayed Post-Teaching Assessment Scores (3 Months Later)

     *Note: * indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05).

When comparing the immediate and delayed assessment scores within each group, it was observed that both groups experienced a decline in scores over time, indicating some loss of knowledge. However, the retention rate was better in Group B, with a smaller decrease in scores (8.3%) compared to Group A (9.8%). This statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) suggests that modern teaching methods may be more effective in promoting long-term retention of knowledge, as they result in less information being forgotten over time.

Table 4: Comparison of Knowledge Retention (Immediate vs. Delayed Assessment Scores)

*Note: * indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05).

The study also explored the relationship between demographic factors (gender, age, and previous academic performance) and retention scores to identify any potential confounding variables. The analysis revealed no significant correlation between gender or age and retention scores in either group (p > 0.05). However, there was a moderate positive correlation between previous academic performance and retention scores, particularly in Group B, indicating that students with higher prior academic performance tended to retain more knowledge. This finding suggests that while demographic factors such as gender and age do not significantly influence retention, prior academic success may play a role in how well students retain information, regardless of the teaching method used.

Table 5: Correlation Between Demographic Factors and Retention Scores

*Note: ** indicates a moderate correlation (r > 0.4); * indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Finally, student feedback provided valuable insights into their perceptions of the teaching methods. Students in Group B reported higher overall satisfaction (mean score of 4.2 vs. 3.8), greater engagement with the material (4.4 vs. 3.7), and an easier learning experience (4.5 vs. 3.6) compared to those in Group A. Additionally, Group B students expressed greater confidence in their retained knowledge (4.3 vs. 3.5). All these differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05), indicating that students found modern teaching methods not only more effective but also more enjoyable and easier to learn from.

Table 6: Student Feedback on Teaching Methods

                    *Note: * indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05).

The current study provides a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of traditional versus modern anatomy teaching methods on student knowledge retention at the Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. Our findings reveal that modern teaching methods, which incorporate digital anatomy platforms, 3D modeling software, and interactive multimedia resources, offer significant advantages over traditional methods, such as cadaveric dissection and didactic lectures. These advantages are evident in both immediate learning outcomes and long-term retention of anatomical knowledge. This aligns with the growing body of research indicating that modern educational technologies can significantly enhance medical education by catering to diverse learning styles and providing more engaging and flexible learning environments.

Our study's results are consistent with findings from several other studies that have explored the impact of different teaching methodologies on anatomy education.7-9 Previous research has demonstrated that students taught with digital anatomy tools tend to perform better on immediate assessments and show greater retention in delayed tests compared to those taught through traditional methods.8-10 For instance, studies that compared traditional dissection-based methods with digital resources found that students exposed to interactive 3D models and virtual simulations had a more profound understanding of anatomical structures and were better able to recall information months after the initial instruction. This suggests that the visual and interactive nature of modern tools may enhance cognitive processes involved in learning, leading to deeper understanding and longer retention of knowledge.

In our study, the retention of knowledge over time was significantly better in the group taught with modern methods. Specifically, the modern teaching group experienced a smaller decrease in retention scores (8.3%) compared to the traditional group (9.8%). This finding mirrors other studies that have reported similar trends, where students who utilized interactive and multimedia tools exhibited superior long-term retention compared to their peers who engaged primarily in cadaveric dissection.11-14 The enhanced retention seen in the modern group could be attributed to the repeated exposure to material, the ability to review and manipulate digital content multiple times, and the active learning environment fostered by these tools. Such features of modern methods may engage students more effectively, promoting deeper cognitive processing and better consolidation of knowledge.

Beyond academic performance, our study also highlights the positive impact of modern teaching methods on student satisfaction and engagement. Students in the modern teaching group reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction, engagement, and perceived ease of learning compared to those in the traditional group. This finding is consistent with the results of other studies that have shown that students often prefer modern teaching tools due to their interactive and visually rich content.10-13 These tools enable students to visualize complex anatomical relationships more clearly and at their own pace, thereby enhancing their overall learning experience. Furthermore, the flexibility offered by digital tools, allowing students to study independently and revisit material as needed, likely contributes to the higher levels of confidence reported by students in their retained knowledge.

The increased student satisfaction and engagement observed in the modern group underscore the importance of incorporating teaching methods that resonate with the current generation of students, who are often more familiar and comfortable with digital technologies. By aligning teaching methods with students' learning preferences, educational institutions can enhance the learning experience and potentially improve academic outcomes.

Despite the clear benefits of modern teaching methods, it is essential to acknowledge the challenges associated with their implementation. The initial costs involved in acquiring and maintaining digital tools, along with the need for ongoing technical support and faculty training, can be substantial. Additionally, while modern methods provide many advantages, they may not fully replicate the hands-on experience and tactile understanding gained through traditional cadaveric dissection. Dissection remains a critical component of anatomy education, offering students an irreplaceable opportunity to explore the human body in three dimensions and develop practical skills that are essential in clinical practice. Therefore, a balanced approach that integrates both traditional and modern methods may be optimal, allowing students to benefit from the strengths of each.

While our study offers valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness of traditional and modern anatomy teaching methods, several limitations should be considered. The study was conducted at a single institution, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other medical schools with different educational environments, resources, and student populations. Additionally, our focus on knowledge retention as measured by written assessments may not fully capture the depth of understanding or the development of practical skills that are crucial in medical education. Future research could expand on this work by including multiple institutions and exploring the impact of these teaching methods on practical skills acquisition and long-term career outcomes for students. Additionally, qualitative studies that capture student and faculty perspectives on the integration of these methods could provide further insights into their strengths and challenges.

In conclusion, our study contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting the integration of modern teaching methods in anatomy education. The findings suggest that digital tools, 3D modeling, and interactive multimedia resources not only enhance immediate learning outcomes but also promote better long-term retention of knowledge and higher levels of student satisfaction and engagement. As medical education continues to evolve, it is increasingly important to adopt teaching strategies that harness the benefits of both traditional and modern methods. By doing so, educational institutions can provide a more comprehensive and effective learning experience that prepares students for the demands of their future roles as healthcare professionals.

1. Sugand, K., Abrahams, P., and Khurana, A. "The Anatomy of Anatomy: A Review for Its Modernization." Anatomical Sciences Education, vol. 3, no. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2010, pp. 83-93. doi:10.1002/ase.159.
2. Turney, B. W. "Anatomy in a Modern Medical Curriculum." Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, vol. 89, no. 2, Mar. 2007, pp. 104-107. doi:10.1308/003588407X176562.
3. Older, J. "Anatomy: A Must for Teaching the Next Generation." The Surgeon, vol. 2, no. 2, May 2004, pp. 79-90. doi:10.1016/S1479-666X(04)80042-0.
4. Jeyakumar, A., Dissanayake, B., and Dissabandara, L. "Dissection in the Modern Medical Curriculum: An Exploration into Student Perception and Adaptations for the Future." Anatomical Sciences Education, vol. 13, 2020, pp. 366-380. doi:10.1002/ase.1920.
5. Benly, P. "Teaching Methodologies on Anatomy - A Review." Journal of Pharmacy and Phamacology Research, vol. 6, no. 6, Jan. 2014, pp. 242-243. doi:10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.6(6).242-43.
6. Abdullah, E., Lone, M., Cray, J. J., et al. "Medical Students’ Opinions of Anatomy Teaching Resources and Their Role in Achieving Learning Outcomes." Medical Science Education, vol. 31, 2021, pp. 1903-1910. doi:10.1007/s40670-021-01218-6.
7. Youssef, S. "Different Approaches for Teaching and Learning Anatomy and Future Directions." Indian Journal of Clinical Anatomy and Physiology, vol. 8, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1–6. doi:10.4103/ijcap.ijcap_20_20.
8. Totlis, T., Tishukov, M., Piagkou, M., Kostares, M., and Natsis, K. "Online Educational Methods vs. Traditional Teaching of Anatomy During the COVID-19 Pandemic." Anatomy & Cell Biology, vol. 54, no. 3, 30 Sept. 2021, pp. 332-339. doi:10.5115/acb.21.083.
9. Leung, B. C., Williams, M., Horton, C., and Cosker, T. D. "Modernising Anatomy Teaching: Which Resources Do Students Rely On?" Journal of Medical Education and Curriculum Development, vol. 7, 2 Nov. 2020, 2382120520955156. doi:10.1177/2382120520955156.
10. Suárez-Escudero, J. C., et al. "Teaching and Learning Anatomy: Pedagogical Methods, History, the Present, and Tendencies." Acta Medica Colombiana, vol. 45, no. 4, 2020, pp. 48-55. doi:10.36104/amc.2020.1197.
11. Jha, S., Sethi, R., Kumar, M., et al. "Comparative Study of the Flipped Classroom and Traditional Lecture Methods in Anatomy Teaching." Cureus, vol. 16, no. 7, 2024, e64378. doi:10.7759/cureus.64378.
12. Biswas, S., Thosar, N., and Srimani, P. "Self-Directed Learning Versus Traditional Teaching in Learning Gross Anatomy Among First-Year Medical Students: A Comparative Study." Cureus, vol. 16, no. 8, Aug. 2024, e66542. doi:10.7759/cureus.66542.
13. Blaich, R., Pather, N., Prvan, T., Engel, R., Hulme, A., and Strkalj, G. "Anatomy Knowledge Retention in Australian Osteopathic Training: A Comparative Study." European Journal of Anatomy, vol. 25, no. 4, 2021, pp. 433-445. doi:10.23812/EJA-20-23.
14. Colak, T., Orha, A. T., Tavas, O., Aksu, E., Guzelordu, D., Sivri, I., Bamac, B., and Colak, S. "A New Method in Anatomical Education of Medical Faculty: Storytelling." Journal of the Anatomical Society of India, vol. 70, no. 2, Apr.-Jun. 2021, pp. 75-80. doi:10.4103/jasi.jasi_25_21.