Abstract
Clay modelling is increasingly used as an anatomy teaching method to supplement practical dissection sessions. The use of clay modelling is an active, tactile learning tool utilized to improve student engagement and enhance students’ understanding of anatomical relationships in human anatomy. Furthermore, not only does clay modelling engage more senses in the learning process, but it was also found that there are educational advantages to the group interactions that are associated with the construction process to further collaborative learning.
The aim of the study was to explore the effect of building anatomical clay models on students’ awareness and understanding of their own thought processes as well as to explore whether clay modelling promoted collaborative learning. This cross-sectional study entailed the use of clay modelling and reflective practice to promote metacognition in third-year BSc students (n = 10), at the University of Stellenbosch’s (SU) Division of Clinical Anatomy. The third-year BSc students were asked to build anatomical clay models (in groups), complete a reflective assignment and an evaluation form as part of their assessment of the Applied Anatomy module. The reflective assignment was based on Gibb’s reflective cycle. The inclusion of such an assignment would trigger students to reflect upon their learning experiences and thus promote their metacognition.
Ten (10) BSc students volunteered to take part in the study. A mixed method approach was followed; the reflective assignments were qualitatively analyzed, while the evaluation forms were quantitatively (statistically) analyzed. Data obtained from the online evaluation forms indicated agreeable responses confirming that the clay modelling was a valuable learning tool. However, the participants preferred cadaveric dissection instead of clay modelling to learn anatomy. Furthermore, three themes became prominent from the thematic analysis of the reflective assignments, namely, (1) Advantages of clay modelling, (2) Challenges of clay modelling, and (3) Suggestions for future practice.
The research suggests that the inclusion of hands-on clay modelling in the undergraduate clinical anatomy is a valuable learning tool. The participants perceived that it enhanced their anatomical knowledge and improved collaborative learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Azer SA, Azer S (2016) 3D anatomy models and impact on learning: a review of the quality of the literature. Health Professions Education 2:80–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.05.002
Bareither ML, Arbel V, Growe M et al (2013) Clay modeling versus written modules as effective interventions in understanding human anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 6:170–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1321
Carlson D, Chandra S, Hobbs N, Steele J (2019) Clay modeling in a sophomore-level anatomy laboratory: will active learning improve student performance? HAPS Educator 23:358–365. https://doi.org/10.21692/haps.2019.008
Creswell JW (2014) Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, 4th edn SAGE
Curlewis K, Leung B, Perera M et al (2021) Clay-based modeling in the Anatomist’s toolkit: a systematic review. Anat Sci Educ 14:252–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/ASE.1996
DeHoff ME, Clark KL, Meganathan K (2011) Learning outcomes and student-perceived value of clay modeling and cat dissection in undergraduate human anatomy and physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 35:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00094.2010.-Alternatives
Fitzgerald MJT, Fitzgerald M, Brophy J et al (1979) Purpose-made models in anatomical teaching. J Vis Commun Med 2:71–73. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453057909153892
Georghiades P (2004) From the general to the situated: three decades of metacognition. Int J Sci Educ 26:365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119401
Gibbs G (1988) Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Further Education Unit, Oxford
Herur A, Kolagi S, Chinagudi S et al (2011) Active learning by play dough modeling in the medical profession. American Journal of Physiology–Advances in Physiology Education 35:241–243. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00087.2010
Khalil MK, Paas F, Johnson TE, Payer AF (2005) Interactive and dynamic visualizations in teaching and learning of anatomy: a cognitive load perspective. The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist: An Official Publication of the American Association of Anatomists 286(1):8–14
Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol 41(2):75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kooloos JGM, Schepens-Franke AN, Bergman EM et al (2014) Anatomical knowledge gain through a clay-modeling exercise compared to live and video observations. Anat Sci Educ 7:420–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1443
Krontiris-Litowitz J (2003) Using manipulatives to improve learning in the undergraduate neurophysiology curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ 27:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00042.2002
Motoike HK, O’Kane RL, Lenchner E, Haspel C (2009) Clay modeling as a method to learn human muscles: a community college study. Anat Sci Educ 2:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.61
Nicholson LL, Reed D, Chan C (2016) An interactive, multi-modal anatomy workshop improves academic performance in the health sciences: a cohort study. BMC Med Educ 16:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0541-4
Oh C-S, Kim J-Y, Choe YH (2009) Learning of cross-sectional anatomy using clay models. Anat Sci Educ 2:156–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.92
Ross ME, Green SB, Salisbury-Glennon JD, Tollefson N (2006) College students’ study strategies as a function of testing: an investigation into metacognitive self-regulation. Innov High Educ 30:361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-005-9004-2
Sandars J (2009) The use of reflection in medical education: AMEE guide no. 44. Med Teach 31:685–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590903050374
Schunk DH (2008) Constructivist theory (chapter 6). An Educational Perspective, In Learning Theories, pp 234–277
Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A (2010) The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 3:83–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.139
Sweller J (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci 12:257–285
Sweller J, van Merriënboer JJG, Paas F (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev 10:251–296
Zainuddin MZ, Razlan AN, Husin A et al (2019) Sculpting the brainstem: understanding brainstem anatomy using modelling clay. Kelantan International Learning & Innovation Exhibition, In
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Fund for Innovation and Research into Learning and Teaching (FIRLT), Stellenbosch University. The team acknowledges Mr. Luke-John Daniels (Division of Clinical Anatomy, Stellenbosch University) who was responsible for capturing the images in the manuscript. Furthermore, the team acknowledges the ANA364 students who participated in the study and credits them for the construction of the impressive clay models.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Correia, J.C., Baatjes, K.J., Meyer, I. (2022). Student-Perceived Value on the Use of Clay Modelling in Undergraduate Clinical Anatomy. In: Shapiro, L., Rea, P.M. (eds) Biomedical Visualisation . Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 1388. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10889-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10889-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-10888-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-10889-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)