Haptic experience to significantly motivate anatomy learning in medical students.
3D bone models
Integration
Painting
Significant learning
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Aug 2024
30 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
16
04
2024
accepted:
29
07
2024
medline:
1
9
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
30
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Currently, multiple tools exist to teach and learn anatomy, but finding an adequate activity is challenging. However, it can be achieved through haptic experiences, where motivation is the means of a significant learning process. This study aimed to evaluate a haptic experience to determine if a tactile and painting with color marker interactive experience, established a better learning process in comparison to the traditional 2D workshop on printed paper with photographs. Plaster bone models of the scapulae, humerus and clavicle were elaborated from a computerized scan tomography. Second year undergraduate medical students were invited to participate, where subjects were randomly assigned to the traditional 2D method or the 3D plaster bone model. A third group decided not to join any workshop. Following, all three groups were evaluated on bone landmarks and view, laterality, muscle insertions and functions. 2D and 3D workshop students were asked their opinion in a focus group and answered a survey regarding the overall perception and learning experience. Evaluation grades are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and answers from the survey are presented as percentages. The survey demonstrated the students in the 3D model graded the experience as outstanding, and in five out of the six questions, answers were very good or excellent. In contrast, for students participating in the 2D workshop the most common answers were fair or good. The exception was the answer regarding the quiz, where both groups considered it good, despite the average among all groups not being a passing grade. To learn the anatomy of the shoulder, the conventional methodology was compared with a haptic experience, where plaster bone models were used, enabling students to touch and paint on them. Based on the focus group and survey this study revealed the 3D workshop was an interactive experience where, the sense of touch and painting greatly contributed to their learning process. Even though this activity was useful in terms of learning bone landmarks, view muscle insertions, and establish relations, further activities must be developed to increase their understanding regarding their function, and its relevance in a clinical setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Currently, multiple tools exist to teach and learn anatomy, but finding an adequate activity is challenging. However, it can be achieved through haptic experiences, where motivation is the means of a significant learning process. This study aimed to evaluate a haptic experience to determine if a tactile and painting with color marker interactive experience, established a better learning process in comparison to the traditional 2D workshop on printed paper with photographs.
METHODS
METHODS
Plaster bone models of the scapulae, humerus and clavicle were elaborated from a computerized scan tomography. Second year undergraduate medical students were invited to participate, where subjects were randomly assigned to the traditional 2D method or the 3D plaster bone model. A third group decided not to join any workshop. Following, all three groups were evaluated on bone landmarks and view, laterality, muscle insertions and functions. 2D and 3D workshop students were asked their opinion in a focus group and answered a survey regarding the overall perception and learning experience. Evaluation grades are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and answers from the survey are presented as percentages.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The survey demonstrated the students in the 3D model graded the experience as outstanding, and in five out of the six questions, answers were very good or excellent. In contrast, for students participating in the 2D workshop the most common answers were fair or good. The exception was the answer regarding the quiz, where both groups considered it good, despite the average among all groups not being a passing grade.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
To learn the anatomy of the shoulder, the conventional methodology was compared with a haptic experience, where plaster bone models were used, enabling students to touch and paint on them. Based on the focus group and survey this study revealed the 3D workshop was an interactive experience where, the sense of touch and painting greatly contributed to their learning process. Even though this activity was useful in terms of learning bone landmarks, view muscle insertions, and establish relations, further activities must be developed to increase their understanding regarding their function, and its relevance in a clinical setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39215247
doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05829-w
pii: 10.1186/s12909-024-05829-w
pmc: PMC11363654
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
946Subventions
Organisme : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
ID : 8259
Organisme : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
ID : 8259
Organisme : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
ID : 8259
Organisme : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
ID : 8259
Organisme : Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
ID : 8259
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
J Neurophysiol. 2016 Oct 1;116(4):1795-1806
pubmed: 27440247
Med Educ. 2007 Jan;41(1):7-14
pubmed: 17209887
Anat Sci Educ. 2013 Jul-Aug;6(4):216-24
pubmed: 23349117
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023 Oct 09;14:1129-1135
pubmed: 37840655
Anat Sci Educ. 2017 Jun;10(3):286-299
pubmed: 27574911
BMC Med Educ. 2023 Aug 15;23(1):574
pubmed: 37582729
Anat Sci Educ. 2014 Nov-Dec;7(6):479-86
pubmed: 24976019
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007 Mar;89(2):104-7
pubmed: 17346399
Anat Sci Educ. 2019 Mar;12(2):164-172
pubmed: 30107081
Ann Anat. 2016 Nov;208:151-157
pubmed: 26996541
Surgeon. 2004 Apr;2(2):79-90
pubmed: 15568432
Anat Rec B New Anat. 2006 Nov;289(6):215-8
pubmed: 17109419
Anat Sci Educ. 2014 Jul-Aug;7(4):262-72
pubmed: 24249485
Anat Sci Educ. 2011 Jul-Aug;4(4):231-4
pubmed: 21618445
Br J Surg. 2000 Aug;87(8):977-9
pubmed: 10931037
Psychol Sci. 2018 Dec;29(12):2031-2038
pubmed: 30376424
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023 Aug 03;14:837-844
pubmed: 37560611
Anat Sci Educ. 2021 Nov;14(6):752-763
pubmed: 33720515
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 17;13(1):e0191328
pubmed: 29342198
Ann Anat. 2018 Sep;219:57-64
pubmed: 29883617
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Nov 12;366(1581):3097-105
pubmed: 21969691
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Sep 29;20(1):335
pubmed: 32993608
Med Educ. 2018 Nov;52(11):1138-1146
pubmed: 30345680
BMC Med Educ. 2023 Oct 20;23(1):783
pubmed: 37864193
Trends Neurosci. 1989 Dec;12(12):513-9
pubmed: 2480667
Surg J (N Y). 2021 Sep 14;7(3):e259-e264
pubmed: 34541319
Anat Rec. 2002 Feb 15;269(1):20-32
pubmed: 11891622
Adv Physiol Educ. 2011 Mar;35(1):68-75
pubmed: 21386004
Anat Sci Educ. 2023 Jul-Aug;16(4):677-693
pubmed: 36748362