Advertisement

The Use of Low-Tech Models to Enhance the Learning of Anatomy

  • Lap Ki ChanEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Anatomy models can be made from very simple materials and may not superficially resemble the structures they are intended to represent. Nevertheless, they accurately depict crucial anatomy relationships and are useful tools for student learning. They can serve as memory aids, help solve three-dimensional problems, and, best of all, provide opportunities for students to interact with teachers. To use these models to produce the best learning experiences for their students, teachers need to involve the students, motivate them, pitch their teaching at the students’ level, give appropriate feedback, and promote students’ reflection. The design of these tools should be guided by the intended learning outcomes, usually some crucial anatomical relationships that students have difficulties with, and their use in teaching should be followed by evaluations on how to improve their design.

References

  1. 1.
    Spitzer VM, Whitlock DG. The visible human dataset: the anatomical platform for human simulation. Anat Rec. 1998;253:49–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Park JS, Chung MS, Hwang SB, Shin BS, Park HS. Visible Korean human: its techniques and applications. Clin Anat. 2006;19:216–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang SX, Heng PA, Liu ZJ. Chinese visible human project. Clin Anat. 2006;19:204–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nguyen N, Wilson TD. A head in virtual reality: development of a dynamic head and neck model. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:294–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spitzer VM, Scherzinger AL. Virtual anatomy: an anatomist’s playground. Clin Anat. 2006;19:192–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sergovich A, Johnson M, Wilson TD. Explorable three-dimensional digital model of the female pelvis, pelvic contents, and perineum for anatomical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:127–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosse C. The potential of computerized representations of anatomy in the training of health care providers. Acad Med. 1995;70:499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jastrow H, Vollrath L. Teaching and learning gross anatomy using modern electronic media based on the visible human project. Clin Anat. 2003;16:44–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hisley KC, Anderson LD, Smith SE, Kavic SM, Tracy JK. Coupled physical and digital cadaver dissection followed by a visual test protocol provides insights into the nature of anatomical knowledge and its evaluation. Anat Sci Educ. 2007;1:27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peterson CA, Tucker RP. Undergraduate coursework in anatomy as a predictor of performance: comparison between students taking a medical gross anatomy course of average length and a course shortened by curriculum reform. Clin Anat. 2005;18:540–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nguyen N, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD. Computer visualizations: factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(2):98–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khot Z, Quinlan K, Norman GR, Wainman B. The relative effectiveness of computer-based and traditional resources for education in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6:211–5.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preece D, Williams SB, Lam R, Weller R. “Let’s get physical”: advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6:216–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chan LK, Cheng MMW. An analysis of the educational value of low-fidelity anatomy models as external representations. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4:256–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chan LK. Pulling my gut out—Simple tools for engaging students in gross anatomy lectures. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:148–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noël GPJC. A novel patchwork model used in lecture and laboratory to teach the three-dimensional organization of mesenteries. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(1):67–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cloud BA, Youdas JW, Hellyer NJ, Krause DA. A functional model of the digital extensor mechanism: demonstrating biomechanics with hair bands. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:144–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gangata H. An innovative approach to supplement the teaching of the spatial gross anatomy relationships of muscles to undergraduates in health sciences. Clin Anat. 2008;21:339–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oh CS, Kim JY, Choe YH. Learning of cross-sectional anatomy using clay models. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:156–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zumwalt AC, Lufler RS, Monteiro J, Shaffer K. Building the body: active learning laboratories that emphasize practical aspects of anatomy and integration with radiology. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:134–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Op Den Akker J, Bohnen A, Oudegeest W, Hillen B. Giving color to a new curriculum: Bodypaint as a tool in medical education. Clin Anat. 2002;15:356–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McMenamin PG. Body painting as a tool in clinical anatomy teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1:139–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finn GM, McLachlan JC. A qualitative study of student responses to body painting. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;3:33–8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andersen J, Nussbaum J, Pecchioni L, Grant J. Interaction skills in instructional settings. In: Vangelisti AL, Daly JA, Friedrich GW, editors. Teaching communication theory and research methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999. p. 359–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Medical and Health Sciences Education, Department of Anatomy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of MedicineThe University of Hong KongHong Kong SARChina

Personalised recommendations