Students' attitudes towards body image donation for 3D printing

Anatomy education has been evolving rapidly in recent years and one of its main features has been the utilisation of new technologies. In both educational and financial terms, among the most promising of these technologies is 3D printing (McMenamin et al., 2014). While the technical aspects of printing have been investigated considerably in the last few years, very little attention has been paid to the legal and ethical aspects of it (Cornwall, 2016). One might assume that the images of anatomical structures for 3D printing (both living and dead) are to be used only if informed consent was obtained. If that is the case than the willingness of different populations towards donation of body images for educational purposes is of significant interest. These attitudes, however, have not been investigated yet. The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes of first year anatomy students towards image donation and contrast them with their attitudes towards whole body donation for anatomy education

Pedagogical Perspectives on the Use of Technology within Medical Curricula : Moving Away from Norm Driven Implementation

There is often an expectation that any educational institution worth its salt will be at the forefront of technological advances. An often unchallenged and somewhat romanticised viewpoint persists that, in all cases, technology is best. What is not always openly discussed is the evidence base and pedagogy behind the use of technology, visualisation and traditional approaches of teaching within the fields of medical and anatomy education curricula. There are many advantages to using technology within the learning environment but, often, it is possible to achieve the same outcomes through the use of many other non-technological instructional modalities. The frequent shortcoming when institutions use technology is that there is a lack of integration across the curriculum, a failure to map to the blueprint, little attempt to include technology in the feedback cycle and assessment, and insufficient time and resource allocation for educators developing resources. Without careful implementation and integration, it can appear that institutions are throwing the latest developments at students without due care and consideration to the evidence-base and without the necessary institutional support for staff and resource development. This is not the fault of educators; the competing demands on staff time and institutional drive to climb the ranking tables means that technology is often perceived as the quick fix