Are all hands-on activities equally effective? Effect of using plastic models, organ dissections, and virtual dissections on student learning and perceptions

American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 80-86

  Lombardi, Sara A ^a,b   Hicks, Reimi E ^c   Thompson, Katerina V ^c   Marbach Ad, Gili ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c University of Maryland   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomy and physiology; Higher education; Model assisted activities; Science perceptions; Structure visualization

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CARDIOVASCULAR FUNCTION; CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CURRICULUM; DISSECTION; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HIGHER EDUCATION; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; LEARNING; METHODOLOGY; MODEL-ASSISTED ACTIVITIES; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS; STRUCTURE VISUALIZATION; STUDENT; TEACHING;

ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY; HIGHER EDUCATION; MODEL-ASSISTED ACTIVITIES; SCIENCE PERCEPTIONS; STRUCTURE VISUALIZATION;

ANATOMY; ATTITUDE; CARDIOVASCULAR PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; CURRICULUM; DISSECTION; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMANS; LEARNING; MODELS, ANATOMIC; MODELS, CARDIOVASCULAR; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRES; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

EID: 84895137867     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: 15221229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00154.2012     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bean JP, Creswell JW. Student attrition among women at a liberal arts college. J Coll St Personnel 21: 320-326, 1980.
2. Berenfeld B, Pallant A, Tinker B, Tinker R, Xie Q. From Genetic Code to Protein Shape Using Dynamic Modeling. Vancouver, BC, Canada: NARST 2004 annual meeting, 2004.
3. Bogduk N. Art macabre: is anatomy necessary? ANZ J Surg 71: 782, 2001.
4. Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington Univ., 1991.
5. Butcher KR. Learning from text with diagrams: promoting mental model development and inference generation. J Educ Psychol 98: 182-197, 2006.
6. Cameron J, Roxburg M, Taylor J, Lauder W. An integrative literature review of student retention in programmes of nursing and midwifery education: why do students stay? J Clin Nurs 20: 1372-1382, 2011.
7. Chickering A, Gamson Z. Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bull 39: 3-7, 1987.
8. DeHoff ME, Clark KL, Maganathan K. Learning outcomes and studentperceived value of clay modeling and cat dissections in undergraduate human anatomy and physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 35: 68-75, 2011.
9. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ 2: 253-259, 2009.
10. Ekstrom RB, Goertz ME, Pollack JM, Rock DA. Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study. Teach Coll Rec 87: 356-373, 1986.
11. Epstein ML, Lazarus AD, Calvano TB, Matthews KA, Hendel RA, Epstein BB, Brosvic GM. Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. Psychol Rec 52: 187-201, 2002.
12. Erickson HH, Clegg VL. Active learning in cardiovascular physiology. In: Promoting Active Learning in the Life Science Classroom, edited by Modell HI, Michael JA. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 701, 1993, p. 107-108.
13. Felder R, Woods D, Stice J, Rugarcia A. The future of engineering education: II. Teaching methods that work. Chem Eng Educ 34: 26-29, 2000.
14. Freeman S, O'Connor E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP. Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 6: 132-129, 2007.
15. Gilbert JK, Boulter CJ. Learning science through models and modeling. In: International Handbook of Science Education, edited by Fraser BJ, Tobin KG. London: Kluwer Academic, 1998, p. 53-56.
16. Hathaway RS, Sharp S, Davis CS. Programmatic efforts affect retention of women in science and engineering. J Women Minorities Sci Eng 7: 30, 2001.
17. Jastrow H, Hollinderbäumer A. On the use and value of new media and how medical students assess their effectiveness in learning anatomy. Anat Rec 280B: 20-29, 2004.
18. Lotkowski VA, Robbins SB, Noeth RJ. The Role of Academic and Non-Academic Factors in Improving College Retention Rate. ACT Policy Report (online). www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/college_retention. pdf [30 December 2013].
19. Lunsford BE, Herzog MJ. Active learning in anatomy and physiology: student reactions and outcomes in a non-traditional A&P course. Am Biol Teach 59: 80-84, 1997.
20. Martinez P, Munday F. 9,000 Voices: Student Persistence and Dropout in Further Education. FEDA report. London, UK: Further Education Development Agency, ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 427169, 1998.
21. Matz R, Rothman ED, Krajcik JS, Banaszak Holl MM. Concurrent enrollment in lecture and laboratory enhances student performance and retention. J Res Sci Teach 49: 659-682, 2012.
22. Mayer RE. The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learn Instruct 13: 125-139, 2003.
23. Maykut PS, Morehouse R. Beginning Qualitative Research: a Philosophical and Practical Guide. Washington, DC: Falmer, 1994.
24. McKeachie W. Research on college teaching. Educ Perspect 11: 3-10, 1972.
25. McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ 38: 418-424, 2004.
26. Mitchell BS, Stephens CR. Teaching anatomy as a multimedia experience. Med Educ 38: 911-912, 2004.
27. Nicholson DT, Chalk C, Funnell WRJ, Daniel SJ. Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomized controlled study of a computergenerated three-dimensional anatomy ear model. Med Educ 40: 1081-1087, 2006.
28. Oh CS, Kim JY, Choe YH. Learning of cross-sectional anatomy using clay models. Med Educ 2: 156-159, 2009.
29. President Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Report to the President. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates With Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (online). http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcastexecutive- report-final_2-13-12.pdf [30 December 2013].
30. Richardson D. Is virtual reality a useful tool in the teaching of physiology? Adv Physiol Educ 35: 117-119, 2011.
31. Rotbain Y, Marbach-Ad G, Stayy R. Effect of bead and illustrations models on high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. J Res Sci Teach 43: 500-529, 2006.
32. Samsel RW, Schmidt GA, Hall JB, Wood LD, Shroff SG, Schumacker PT. Cardiovascular physiology teaching: computer simulations vs. animal demonstrations. Adv Physiol Educ 11: 36-46, 1994.
33. Seymour E, Hewitt N. Talking About Leaving. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997.
34. Sugand K, Abraham P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 3: 83-93, 2010.
35. Stansby G. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ 38: 911, 2004.
36. Waters JR, VanMeter P, Perrotti W, Drogo S, Cyr RJ. 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, 2005.
37. Waters JR, Van Meter P, Perrotti W, Drogo S, Cyr RJ. Human clay models versus cat dissection: how the similarities between the classroom and the exam affects student performance. Adv Physiol Educ 35: 227-236, 2011.
38. Wilson ZS, Holmes L, deGravelles K, Sylvain MR, Batiste L, Johnson M, McGuire SY, Pang SS, Warner IM. Hierarchical mentoring: a transformative strategy for improving diversity and retention in undergraduate STEM disciplines. J Sci Educ Technol 21: 148-156, 2012.
39. Winkelmann A. Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Med Educ 41: 15-22, 2007.
40. Zhao YC, Kennedy G, Yukawa K, Pyman B, O'Leary S. Can virtual reality simulator be used as a training aid to improve cadaver temporal bone dissection? Results of a randomized blinded control trial. Laryngoscope 121: 831-837, 2011.