PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
There is a lack of domestic studies that have designed anatomical education programs for systematic cadaver dissection and compared them with existing teaching methods. The purpose of this study was to explore effective educational methods in limited environments by for applying 3D visualization and game-based learning. The study included 43 participants who took a ‘Head and neck anatomy' course in a department of dental hygiene. The anatomy of the skull, as well as muscles in the head and neck areas were considered using a 3D visualization application. Later in the class, the course content was structured according to a game-based learning method. A survey was conducted in order to measure participants' perceptions of the teaching methods. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and a paired-sample T-test. Satisfaction with the teaching methods applied to the gross anatomy class was observed with regard to game-based learning (4.49), 3D visualizing application (4.01), and drawing (3.81). Among the educational methods suggested in the question, the students' ranked the following teaching methods from first to third as follows: game-based learning, a 3D visualization application, and observation of an anatomical model. The average score difference (8.40) of the pre- and post-assessment of the participants' perception of 3D visualization and game-based learning, was larger than the score difference (1.26) of the class conducted according to the conventional method. The academic achievement of participants was significantly increased (p<0.001). Proper use of 3D visualization applications and game-based learning in gross anatomy programs contributes to increases in student motivation, students' interest in the subject matter, cooperative learning, and improvement in learning outcomes. This study will be helpful to instructors in various fields, including dental hygiene departments, which operate gross anatomy classes.
References
1. Chapman SJ, Hakeem AR, Marangoni G, Prasad KR. Anatomy in medical education. Ann Anat. 2013; 195:409–14.
2. Eleazer CD, Scopa Kelso R. Influence of study approaches and course design on academic success in the undergraduate anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2018; 11:496–509.
3. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Ann Anat. 2016; 208:151–7.
4. Kim DH, Ha JE. Current status and suggestions for the improvement of gross anatomy education in dental hygiene program. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2015; 28:167–74. Korean.
5. Bolender DL, Ettarh R, Jerrett DP, Laherty RF. Curriculum integration= course disintegration: what does this mean for anatomy? Anat Sci Educ. 2013; 6:205–8.
6. Fleagle TR, Borcherding NC, Harris J, Hoffmann DS. Application of flipped classroom pedagogy to the human gross anatomy laboratory: Student preferences and learning outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2018; 11:385–96.
7. Ang ET, Chan JM, Gopal V, Li Shia N. Gamifying anatomy education. Clin Anat. 2018; 31:997–1005.
8. McCoy L, Lewis JH, Dalton D. Gamification and multimedia for medical education: A landscape review. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2016; 116:22–34.
9. Sipiyaruk K, Gallagher JE, Hatzipanagos S, Reynolds PA. A rapid review of serious games: From healthcare education to dental education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2018; 22:243–57.
10. Scott JL, Moxham BJ, Rutherford SM. Building an open academic environment – a new approach to empowering students in their learning of anatomy through ‘Shadow Modules'. J Anat. 2014; 224:286–95.
11. Kim YH, Hong CW, Oh SO, Yoon S, Kim MJ, Ju SI, et al. The impact of alternating dissection in conjunction with reciprocal peer teaching on practical exam scores in a medical anatomy course. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2018; 31:83–9. Korean.
12. Chakraborty TR, Cooperstein DF. Exploring anatomy and physiology using iPad applications. Anat Sci Educ. 2018; 11:336–45.
13. Yang KW, Park SU, Kim JY, Lee HS, Choi IJ, Lee JH. Effectiveness of smartphone application in histology practice. Anat Biol Anthropol. 2019; 32:17–21.
14. Yammine K, Violato C. A metaanalysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2015; 8:525–38.
15. Akle V, Peña-Silva RA, Valencia DM, Rincón-Perez CW. Validation of clay modeling as a learning tool for the periventricular structures of the human brain. Anat Sci Educ. 2018; 11:137–45.
16. Backhouse S, Taylor D, Armitage JA. Is This Mine to Keep? Three-dimensional printing enables active, personalized learning in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2018 Nov 8.doi:. DOI: 10.1002/ase.1840.
17. Smith CF, Tollemache N, Covill D, Johnston M. Take away body parts! An investigation into the use of 3D-printed anatomical models in undergraduate anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ. 2018; 11:44–53.
18. Brown P, Hamilton N, Denison A. A novel 3D stereoscopic anatomy tutorial. Clin Teach. 2012; 9:50–3.
19. Tan S, Hu A, Wilson T, Ladak H, Haase P, Fung K. Role of a computergenerated three-dimensional laryngeal model in anatomy teaching for advanced learners. J Laryngol Otol. 2012; 126:395–401.
20. Hwang GJ, Wu PH. Applications, impacts and trends of mobile technology-enhanced learning: A review of 2008–2012 publications in selected SSCI journals. Int J Mobile Learn Organ. 2014; 8:83–95.
21. Vafa S, Chico DE. A needs assessment for mobile technology use in medical education. Int J Med Educ. 2013; 4:230–5.
22. Nevin CR, Westfall AO, Rodriguez JM, Dempsey DM, Cherrington A, Roy B, et al. Gamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education. Postgrad Med J. 2014; 90:685–93.
23. Ahmed M, Sherwani Y, Al-Jibury O, Najim M, Rabee R, Ashraf M. Gamification in medical education. Med Educ Online. 2015; 20:29536.
24. Kerfoot BP, Baker H, Pangaro L, Agarwal K, Taffet G, Mechaber AJ, et al. An online spaced-education game to teach and assess medical students: A multiinstitutional prospective trial. Acad Med. 2012; 87:1443–9.
25. Parise S, Crosina E. How a mobile social media game can enhance the educational experience. J Online Learn Teach. 2012; 8:209–22.
26. Dinsmore CE, Daugherty S, Zeitz HJ. Student response to the gross anatomy laboratory in medical curriculum. Clin Anat. 2001; 14:231–6.
27. Kim DH. The effect and suggestions for operation of cadaver dissection program for dental hygiene students. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2015; 28:213–21. Korean.
28. Ismail MA, Ahmad A, Mohammad JA, Fakri NMRM, Nor MZM, Pa MNM. Using Kahoot! as a formative assessment tool in medical education: a phenomenological study. BMC Med Educ. 2019; 19:230.
29. Felszeghy S, Pasonen-Seppänen S, Koskela A, Nieminen P, Härkönen K, Paldanius KMA, et al. Using online game-based platforms to improve student performance and engagement in histology teaching. BMC Med Educ. 2019; 19:273.
30. Moro C, Štromberga Z, Raikos A, Stirling A. The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2017; 10:549–59.
Fig. 1.
Anatomy teaching methods applied to this study. (A) 3D visualizing application (Complete Anatomy), (B) game-based learning (Ka-hoot!). (source – https://3d4medical.com/, https://kahoot.com/)
Table 1.
Satisfaction and usefulness of anatomy teaching methods∗
| Category | Frequency (%) | Mean± S.D.† | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| Satisfaction | 3D visualizing application | 1 | 1 | 7 | 21 | 13 | 4.02±0.89 |
| (2.3) | (2.3) | (16.3) | (48.8) | (30.2) | |||
| Game-based learning | 1 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 25 | 4.49±0.77 | |
| (2.3) | (0) | (2.3) | (37.2) | (58.1) | |||
| Drawing | 0 | 3 | 10 | 22 | 8 | 3.81±0.82 | |
| (0) | (7.0) | (23.3) | (51.2) | (18.6) | |||
| 3D visualizing application | Motivation | 0 | 0 | 7 | 28 | 8 | 4.02±0.60 |
| (0) | (0) | (16.3) | (65.1) | (18.6) | |||
| Learning ability | 0 | 0 | 9 | 27 | 7 | 3.95±0.62 | |
| (0) | (0) | (20.9) | (62.8) | (16.3) | |||
| Interest | 0 | 1 | 7 | 22 | 13 | 4.09±0.75 | |
| (0) | (2.3) | (16.3) | (51.2) | (30.2) | |||
| Cooperation | 0 | 1 | 9 | 21 | 12 | 4.02±0.77 | |
| (0) | (2.3) | (20.9) | (48.8) | (27.9) | |||
| Game-based learning | Motivation | 0 | 0 | 3 | 14 | 26 | 4.53±0.63 |
| (0) | (0) | (7.0) | (32.6) | (60.5) | |||
| Learning ability | 0 | 0 | 9 | 16 | 18 | 4.21±0.77 | |
| (0) | (0) | (20.9) | (37.2) | (41.9) | |||
| Interest | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 22 | 4.44±0.63 | |
| (0) | (0) | (7.0) | (41.9) | (51.2) | |||
| Cooperation | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 22 | 4.44±0.63 | |
| (0) | (0) | (7.0) | (41.9) | (51.2) | |||
| Drawing | Motivation | 0 | 3 | 17 | 17 | 6 | 3.60±0.82 |
| (0) | (7.0) | (39.5) | (39.5) | (14.0) | |||
| Learning ability | 0 | 1 | 15 | 18 | 9 | 3.81±0.79 | |
| (0) | (2.3) | (34.9) | (41.9) | (20.9) | |||
| Interest | 0 | 3 | 14 | 17 | 9 | 3.74±0.88 | |
| (0) | (7.0) | (32.6) | (39.5) | (20.9) | |||
| Cooperation | 0 | 9 | 20 | 9 | 5 | 3.23±0.92 | |
| (0) | (20.9) | (46.5) | (20.9) | (11.6) | |||
Table 2.
Helpful anatomy teaching methods
Table 3.
Correlation coefficient between items in the method of anatomical education
| Teaching method | Item | Satisfaction | Motivation | Learning ability | Interest | Cooperatio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3D visualizing application | Satisfaction | 1 | ||||
| Motivation | .449∗∗ | 1 | ||||
| Learning ability | .613∗∗ | .780∗∗ | 1 | |||
| Interest | .534∗∗ | .580∗∗ | .732∗∗ | 1 | ||
| Cooperation | .557∗∗ | .619∗∗ | .705∗∗ | .655∗∗ | 1 | |
| Game-based learning | Satisfaction | 1 | ||||
| Motivation | .382∗ | 1 | ||||
| Learning ability | .385∗ | .644∗∗ | 1 | |||
| Interest | .578∗∗ | .711∗∗ | .736∗∗ | 1 | ||
| Cooperation | .480∗∗ | .771∗∗ | .736∗∗ | .759∗ | 1 | |
| Drawing | Satisfaction | 1 | ||||
| Motivation | .734∗∗ | 1 | ||||
| Learning ability | .564∗∗ | .798∗∗ | 1 | |||
| Interest | .824∗∗ | .784∗∗ | .786∗∗ | 1 | ||
| Cooperation | .435∗∗ | .534∗∗ | .581∗∗ | .518∗∗ | 1 |
Table 4.
Scores of pre and post evaluation according to whether new teaching method is applied
| New teaching method | Mean± S.D.† | t-statistics | p-value∗ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | Pre-test | 1.83±2.14 | – 11.327 | <.001 |
| Post-test | 10.24±5.70 | |||
| Difference | 8.40±4.81 | 9.777 | <.001 | |
| Non-applied | Pre-test | 0.67±0.99 | – 2.754 | 0.009 |
| Post-test | 1.91±3.35 | |||
| Difference | 1.26±2.96 | 9.777 | <.001 | |
XML Download