Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students

Abstract

In this study the relationship between underachievement in anatomy and spatial ability (both geometrical and anatomical) is investigated. Subjects were second-year medical students at the University of Cape Town from 1980 to 1983. Geometrical spatial ability was measured using a battery of three-dimensional exercises involving the sectioning, joining, translation, rotation and visualization of simple solid objects. Anatomical spatial achievement was measured using university practical examination scores of April, June and October, as well as students' scores on those items in the April, June and November MCQ anatomy examinations which were classified as spatially three-dimensional by a panel of lecturers in anatomy. Non-spatial anatomical achievement was measured using the university essay examination scores of April, June and November, together with students' scores on the non-spatial items in the MCQ anatomy examinations. From 1980 to 1983 it was found that students who failed the battery of geometrical spatial exercises and/or recorded large, persistent deficits on spatial MCQs relative to non-spatial MCQs, scored significantly lower marks in practical anatomy examinations throughout the year than those students who scored well in the battery of geometrical spatial exercises. Spatially competent and spatially inept students performed equally well on the non-spatial MCQs and the non-spatial essay examinations. Borderline and failing students recorded the greatest deficits in anatomical spatial scores (for whom losses of approximately 18% occurred in practical examinations in anatomy). Since potential failures with persistent spatial handicaps can be readily identified by mid-year, a programme of differentiated teaching methods is recommended for these students.

Spatial abilities of expert clinical anatomists: Comparison of abilities between novices, intermediates, and experts in anatomy

“…Both the expert and intermediate groups outperformed the novices and this result dovetails well with other research, which suggest that inherent spatial ability becomes less important as experience takes over (Wanzel et al, 2003). It is clear from previous research that spatial ability is a reliable predictor of success in learning anatomy (Garg et al, 2001;Rochford, 1985;Guillot et al, 2006). This is all a prelude to focusing anatomy teaching on developing those spatial skills that are susceptible to change.…”

Représentation mentale et processus moteur : le cas de la rotation mentale

“…On s'est egalement interrogé sur l'évolution des capacités individuelles de RMà la suite d'un entraînement (Alington et al, 1992 ;Kass et al, 1998 ;Roberts & Bell, 2000 ;Hoyek et al, 2009) (Rochford, 1985 ;Garg et al, 2001 ;Hegarty et al, 2008 ;Wanzel et al, 2007 ;Guillot et al, 2007a ;Hoyek et al, 2009). Pour cela, d'autres formes de tests de RM ontété utilisées, impliquant des lettres et des chiffres (Vingerhoets et al, 2001) et même des segments corporels (Parsons, 1994).…”

Rapid Prototyping: An Educational Extension of Anatomy Coloring Textbooks

“…Recently, it has been demonstrated that visual-spatial ability (VZ) of students greatly affects their performance in a gross anatomy course, with students scoring high on the Mental Rotation test performing better on spatially complex anatomy questions [45]. Since students have different VZ, we, as educators, have the responsibility to consider this variability and appropriately implement pedagogical techniques that facilitate the acquisition of these skills [46][47][48]. It has even been suggested that anatomy teaching should focus on developing those spatial skills that are susceptible to change with experience [49,50].…”