Purpose—made models in anatomical teaching

We incorporated clay modeling into gross anatomy and neuro-anatomy courses to help students understand cross-sectional anatomy. By making clay models, cutting them and comparing cut surfaces to CT and MR images, students learned how cross-sectional twodimensional images were created from three-dimensional structure of human organs. Most students in a clay modeling group responded positively to this approach, and their average score on CT examination was higher than that of a group that did not use clay models. Clay modeling appears to be a useful supplement to conventional anatomy or radiologic anatomy education. It can be applied to any part of human body, and its effectiveness will be greater when a more complicated understanding of cross-sectional anatomy is required. Anat Sci Educ 2:156-159, 2009.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning of cross‐sectional anatomy using clay models

Kim

Choe

2009

“…It was first documented as a method of teaching anatomy to medical students, specifically the central nervous system, in 1904 (Herring, 1904). Plasticine models were used by Fitzgerald et al (1979) for teaching gross anatomical structures to medical students to address the reduction in dedicated anatomy teaching and availability of cadavers, highlighting the fact that these issues have been long‐standing (Turney, 2007; Gogalniceanu et al, 2009). Within the last decade, clay‐based modeling has continued to be used for teaching multiple anatomical regions, including the upper respiratory tract and the musculoskeletal system (Skinder‐Meredith, 2010; Naug et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Curlewis

Leung

Perera

et al. 2020

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.

“…Clay modeling is increasingly being used to learn anatomy and can be applied outside the dissection room (Fitzgerald et al, ; Krontiris‐Litowitz, ; Eftekhar et al, ; Waters et al, ; Oh et al, ; Howell and Howell, ; Naug et al, ; Waters et al, ; Bareither et al, ). It is a low‐cost, easy exercise that involves a kinesthetic three‐dimensional sensory approach to the learning of anatomy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kooloos

Schepens‐Franke

Bergman

et al. 2014

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.