Clay modeling as a method to learn human muscles: A community college study

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 19-23

  Motoike, Howard K ^a   O'Kane, Robyn L ^a   Lenchner, Erez ^a   Haspel, Carol ^a  

^a University of New York   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomy and physiology teaching; Cat dissection; Clay modeling; Community college; Evaluation

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CLAY; COMMUNITY COLLEGE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISSECTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; MUSCLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED STATES; ADULT; ANIMAL; ART; CAT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; SCHOOL; TEACHING;

ALUMINUM SILICATE;

ADULT; ALUMINUM SILICATES; ANATOMY; ANIMALS; CATS; COMPREHENSION; CURRICULUM; DISSECTION; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MODELS, ANATOMIC; MUSCLES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SCHOOLS; SCULPTURE; TEACHING;

EID: 66149121917     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.61     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Elizondo-Omaña RE, Guzmán-López S, García-Rodríguez Mde L. 2005. Dissection as a teaching tool: Past, present, and future. Anat Rec 285B:11-15.
2. Ernst H, Colthorpe K. 2007. The efficacy of interactive lecturing for students with diverse science backgrounds. Adv Physiol Educ 31:41-44.
3. Franklin S, Peat M, Lewis A. 2001. Virtual versus traditional dissections in enhancing learning: a student perspective. In: Proceedings of ASCILITE 2001; Melbourne, Australia; 9-12 Dec 2001; The 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, p. 61-64. The Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Figtree, New South Wales, Australia: URL: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/ backup/franklins.pdf [accessed 17 November 2008].
4. Glenn D. 2007. You will be tested on this. Chron High Educ 53:A14.
5. Goodwyn L, Salm S. 2007. Modeling muscles. Sci Teach 74:49-52.
6. HAPS, The Human Anatomy & Physiology Society. 2001. Animal Use Position Statement, LaGrange, GA. URL: http://www.hapsweb.org/ displaycommon.cfm?an51&subarticlenbr521 [accessed 17 November 2008].
7. Herbster DL, Price E, Johnson VR. 1996. Comparing university students and community college students learning styles and Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) preferences. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE 1996); St. Louis, Missouri; 24-28 Feb 1996; ED 395907. The Association of Teacher Educators: Manassas, VA. URL: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/ content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/8b/c0.pdf [accessed 17 November 2008].
8. Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. 2006. First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Adv Physiol Educ 30:13-16.
9. Paige BE. 2000. Psychological types of dental hygiene students. J Psych Type 52:32-35.
10. PSU, Pennsylvania State University, 2008. Undergraduate Admissions. University Park, PA. URL: http://admissions.psu.edu/ [accessed 17 November 2008].
11. Rizzolo LJ, Stewart WB. 2006. Should we continue teaching anatomy by dissection when. . .? Anat Rec 289B:215-218.
12. Tanner K, Chatman LS, Allen D. 2003. Approaches to cell biology teaching: Cooperative learning in the science classroom-beyond students working in groups. Cell Biol Educ 2:1-5.
13. Theoret CL, Eric-Norman C, Bernier S. 2007. Why dissection videos should not replace cadaver prosections in the gross veterinary anatomy curriculum: Results from a comparative study. J Vet Med 34:151-156.
14. Waters JR, Van Meter P, Perrotti W, Drogo S, Cyr RJ. 2005. Cat dissection vs. sculpting human structures in clay: An analysis of two approaches to undergraduate human anatomy laboratory education. Adv Physiol Educ 29:27-34.
15. Wehrwein EA, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. 2007. Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Adv Physiol Educ 31:153-157.