Anatomical knowledge gain through a clay-modeling exercise compared to live and video observations

Clay modeling is increasingly used as a teaching method other than dissection. The haptic experience during clay modeling is supposed to correspond to the learning effect of manipulations during exercises in the dissection room involving tissues and organs. We questioned this assumption in two prete...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Anatomical sciences education 2014-11, Vol.7 (6), p.420-429
Main Authors: Kooloos, Jan G.M., Schepens-Franke, Annelieke N., Bergman, Esther M., Donders, Rogier A.R.T., Vorstenbosch, Marc A.T.M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aluminum Silicates
anatomical knowledge
Anatomy
Anatomy - education
biomedical education
clay modeling
Comparative Analysis
Educational Measurement
Female
gross anatomy education
haptics
Human Body
Humans
Knowledge Level
Laboratory Procedures
live observations
Male
Manipulative Materials
Medical Education
Models, Anatomic
neuroanatomy
Observation
Pretests Posttests
Problem-Based Learning - methods
Scores
Statistical Analysis
Teaching Methods
Time on Task
video observations
Video Technology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Clay modeling is increasingly used as a teaching method other than dissection. The haptic experience during clay modeling is supposed to correspond to the learning effect of manipulations during exercises in the dissection room involving tissues and organs. We questioned this assumption in two pretest–post‐test experiments. In these experiments, the learning effects of clay modeling were compared to either live observations (Experiment I) or video observations (Experiment II) of the clay‐modeling exercise. The effects of learning were measured with multiple choice questions, extended matching questions, and recognition of structures on illustrations of cross‐sections. Analysis of covariance with pretest scores as the covariate was used to elaborate the results. Experiment I showed a significantly higher post‐test score for the observers, whereas Experiment II showed a significantly higher post‐test score for the clay modelers. This study shows that (1) students who perform clay‐modeling exercises show less gain in anatomical knowledge than students who attentively observe the same exercise being carried out and (2) performing a clay‐modeling exercise is better in anatomical knowledge gain compared to the study of a video of the recorded exercise. The most important learning effect seems to be the engagement in the exercise, focusing attention and stimulating time on task. Anat Sci Educ 7: 420–429. © 2014 American Association of Anatomists.
ISSN:1935-9772
1935-9780
DOI:10.1002/ase.1443