Clay‐Based Modeling in the Anatomist's Toolkit: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Anatomical education has suffered from reduced teaching time and poor availability of staff and resources over the past thirty years. Clay-based modeling (CBM) is an alternative technique for teaching anatomy that can improve student knowledge and experience. This systematic review aimed to summarize and appraise the quality of the literature describing the uses, advantages, and limitations of CBM compared to alternative methods of teaching human gross anatomy to students or qualified healthcare professionals. A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted, and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to assess study quality. Out of the 829 studies identified, 12 papers met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for this review. The studies were of high quality, with a mean MERSQI score of 11.50/18. Clay-based modeling can be used to teach all gross anatomical regions, and 11 studies demonstrated a significant improvement in short-term knowledge gain in students who used CBM in comparison to other methods of learning anatomy. Eight studies that included subjective assessment showed that CBM is rated highly. However, some studies showed that students viewed CBM as juvenile and experienced difficulty making the models. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that CBM improves long-term knowledge. Clay-based modeling is an effective learning method for human gross anatomy and should be incorporated into the anatomists' toolkit. In the future, more randomized controlled studies with transparent study designs investigating the long-term impact of CBM are needed. Anat Sci Educ 0: 1-11.

One year of anatomy teaching and learning in the outbreak: Has the Covid‐19 pandemic marked the end of a century‐old practice? A systematic review

“…Over the last decades, alternative and less costly teaching technologies (3D printing, the use of virtual reality, and dissection software programs) have gradually replaced traditional anatomical education, with multiple ranges of study modules based on curricular integration (Nicholson et al, 2006; Wilson et al, 2018; Curlewis et al, 2021).…”

Anatomy education for medical students in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in 2019: A 20‐year follow‐up

“…It is impossible to explore changes in learning provision in anatomy over the last 20 years without considering the rise of innovation, including both the rise of arts and humanities, for example, body painting (Finn & McLachlan, 2010 ), clay modeling (Oh et al, 2009 ; Bareither et al, 2013 ; Curlewis et al, 2021 ), and also technology. Globally, there has been an explosion in the use of TEL and the use of personal electronic devices (Swedin & Ferro, 2007 ).…”

Prospective comparative study on enhancing geometrical mental representation and anatomical learning in medical students through modeling clay as an assessment tool

“…Studies have shown its benefits in enhancing understanding and engaging students, but its effectiveness depends on the implementation and student preferences [18][19][20] (Kooloos et al, 2014;Curlewis et al, 2020). 21,22 To investigate this, we will conduct a comparative study examining the differences in students' geometrical mental representations formed through verbal descriptions alone and those enhanced after a tactile interaction. This comparison will enable us to objectively observe the development and accuracy of mental representations, thereby evaluating the reliability of clay modeling as an assessment tool.…”