FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Anat Sci Educ / Anatomy Teaching, a “Model” Answer? Evaluating &...
Anatomical sciences education2018; 12(5); 529-540; doi: 10.1002/ase.1823

Anatomy Teaching, a “Model” Answer? Evaluating “Geoff”, a Painted Anatomical Horse, as a Tool for Enhancing Topographical Anatomy Learning.

Abstract: Development of new methods for anatomy teaching is increasingly important as we look to modernize and supplement traditional teaching methods. In this study, a life-sized equine model, "Geoff," was painted with surface and deep anatomical structures with the aim of improving students' ability to convert theoretical knowledge into improved topographical anatomy knowledge on the live horse. Third and fourth year veterinary medicine students (n = 45) were randomly allocated into experimental (used "Geoff") and control (used textbook) groups. The efficacy of the model was evaluated through a structured oral exam using a live horse. Questionnaires gathered information on student confidence and enjoyment of the task. There was no significant difference in the performance of experimental and control groups either immediately (44±20% vs. 40±21%; P = 0.504) or 9 weeks after the learning intervention (55±17% vs. 55±20%; P = 0.980). There were however specific questions on which the experimental group performed better than controls, and for which gender effects were apparent. The students using "Geoff" showed a transient gain in confidence following the session (Likert scale 2.7 to 3.6) however the initial increase was no longer present at the second test. There was a significant influence of gender on confidence with greater confidence gains in females in the Experimental group. The students found the model to be extremely useful and both groups found the sessions enjoyable. The model will be of benefit as a complementary learning tool for students.
© 2018 American Association of Anatomists.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-11-09 PubMed ID: 30412927DOI: 10.1002/ase.1823Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Evaluation Study
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research investigates the effectiveness of a painted, life-sized equine model named “Geoff” in improving the anatomical knowledge of veterinary medicine students. Although the use of “Geoff” didn’t significantly outperform traditional textbook methods, it was found to be useful in certain areas, to increase student confidence transiently, and to be particularly effective for female students.

Study Design and Methodology

  • The study involved third and fourth year veterinary medicine students, numbered at 45 and who were randomly arranged into two different groups.
  • The control group continued learning with traditional textbooks, while the experimental group were provided with “Geoff”, a life-sized painted horse model showcasing anatomical structures.
  • This was intended to test whether utilising the horse model had any significant impact on improving students’ understanding of topographical anatomy and their ability to apply their theoretical knowledge to a real, live horse.

Evaluation Methods and Findings

  • To evaluate the effectiveness of the learning tools, the researchers employed structured oral exams using a live horse and drafted questionnaires that centered on student confidence and enjoyment.
  • The results revealed no significant difference between the performance of the experimental group (those who used “Geoff”) and the control group.
  • However, there were specific questions where the experimental group performed better than the control group, suggesting the model could potentially provide some learning benefits.
  • In the experimental group, the students gained transiently in confidence following their session with “Geoff” though these initially surged confidence levels plateaued by the time the second test was administered.

Gender Effects and Student Perception

  • The study also unveiled a significant influence of gender on confidence gained from the learning activity. Female students in the experimental group were found to have greater confidence gains than their male counterparts.
  • The painted horse model was reported as an extremely useful tool by the majority of students involved in the study.
  • While student performance metrics did not significantly vary between groups, both reported that the sessions were enjoyable, suggesting the model as a valuable teaching tool in terms of student engagement.

Conclusions and Implications

  • While the painted horse model, “Geoff,” didn’t significantly improve academic performance, it still showed promise as a complementary learning tool that could engage students more actively in their learning process.
  • The fact that there were specific questions where the experimental group outperformed the control group shows potential areas where such a model can be particularly helpful.
  • The transient boost in confidence and the particular confidence gains seen in female students may also be worth further investigation.

Cite This Article

APA
Bietzk E, Weller R, Simons V, Channon SB. (2018). Anatomy Teaching, a “Model” Answer? Evaluating “Geoff”, a Painted Anatomical Horse, as a Tool for Enhancing Topographical Anatomy Learning. Anat Sci Educ, 12(5), 529-540. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1823

Publication

Anatomical sciences education
ISSN: 1935-9780
NlmUniqueID: 101392205
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 5
Pages: 529-540

Researcher Affiliations

Bietzk, Edward
  • Department of Clinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, North Mymms, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Weller, Renate
  • Department of Clinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, North Mymms, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Simons, Victoria
  • Department of Clinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, North Mymms, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Channon, Sarah B
  • Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

MeSH Terms

  • Anatomy, Regional / education
  • Animals
  • Curriculum
  • Education, Veterinary / methods
  • Educational Measurement / statistics & numerical data
  • Female
  • Horses / anatomy & histology
  • Humans
  • Learning
  • Male
  • Models, Anatomic
  • Paintings
  • Self Report / statistics & numerical data
  • Sex Factors
  • Students / psychology
  • Students / statistics & numerical data

Grant Funding

  • 281571 / Animal Care Trust

References

This article includes 107 references
  1. AAVME. Competency-Based Veterinary Education: CBVE Framework. 2018.
  2. Azer SA. The place of surface anatomy in the medical literature and undergraduate anatomy textbooks. Anat Sci Educ 6:415-432.
  3. Azer SA, Eizenberg N. Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first-and second-year students. Surg Radiol Anat 29:173-180.
  4. Backhouse M, Fitzpatrick M, Hutchinson J, Thandi CS, Keenan ID. Improvements in anatomy knowledge when utilizing a novel cyclical “observe-reflect-draw-edit-repeat” learning process. Anat Sci Educ 10:7-22.
  5. Baddeley AD. Human Memory: Theory and Practice. 1997.
  6. Baryla E, Shelley G, Trainor W. Transforming rubrics using factor analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 17:1-7.
  7. Beavers AS, Lounsbury JW, Richards JK, Huck SW, Skolits GJ, Esquivel SL. Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Pract Assess Res Eval 18:1-13.
  8. Bhangu A, Boutefnouchet T, Yong X, Abrahams P, Joplin R. A three-year prospective longitudinal cohort study of medical students’ attitudes toward anatomy teaching and their career aspirations. Anat Sci Educ 3:184-190.
  9. Bjork RA. Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. 1988.
  10. Bowyer MW, Shackelford SA, Garofalo E, Pugh K, Mackenzie CF. Perception does not equal reality for resident vascular trauma skills. J Surg Res 198:280-288.
  11. Boyatzis CJ, Varghese R. Children’s emotional associations with colors. J Gen Psychol 155:77-85.
  12. Braid F, Williams SB, Weller R. Design and validation of a novel learning tool, the “Anato-Rug”, for teaching equine topographical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 5:256-263.
  13. Brenton H, Hernandez J, Bello F, Strutton P, Purkayastha S, Firth T, Darzi A. Using multimedia and Web3D to enhance anatomy teaching. Comput Educ 49:32-53.
  14. Butter J, Grant TH, Egan M, Kaye M, Wayne DB, Carrión-Carire V, McGaghie WC. Does ultrasound training boost Year 1 medical student competence and confidence when learning abdominal examination?. Med Educ 41:843-848.
  15. Cake MA. Deep dissection: Motivating students beyond rote learning in veterinary anatomy. J Vet Med Educ 33:266-271.
  16. Chan LK, Cheng MM. An analysis of the educational value of low-fidelity anatomy models as external representations. Anat Sci Educ 4:256-263.
  17. Chen D, Zhang Q, Deng J, Cai Y, Huang J, Li F, Xiong K. A shortage of cadavers: The predicament of regional anatomy education in mainland China. Anat Sci Educ 11:397-402.
  18. Cho MJ, Hwang YI. Students’ perception of anatomy education at a Korean medical college with respect to time and contents. Anat Cell Biol 46:157-162.
  19. Choi-Lundberg DL, Low TF, Patman P, Turner P, Sinha SN. Medical student preferences for self-directed study resources in gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 9:150-156.
  20. Chou CL, Topp KS, Kruidering-Hall M. Integrating surface anatomy learning with clinical skills training. Med Educ 44:1127-1128.
  21. Craig S, Tait N, Boers D, McAndrew D. Review of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools. ANZ J Surg 80:212-216.
  22. Craik FI, Lockhart RS. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 11:671-684.
  23. D'Agostino RB. Tests for normal distribution. 1986.
  24. Dale VH, Head SD, May SA. Students’ first impressions of a new, more integrated curriculum with increased self-directed study time. 2008.
  25. DeHoff ME, Clark KL, Meganathan K. Learning outcomes and studentperceived value of clay modeling and cat dissection in undergraduate human anatomy and physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 35:68-75.
  26. Drake RL. Meeting the challenge: The future of the anatomical sciences in medical school curricula. Anat Rec 269:68.
  27. 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.
  28. Dzulkifli MA, Mustafar MF. The influence of colour on memory performance: A review. Malays J Med Sci 20:3-9.
  29. Entwistle N, Tait H. Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. High Educ 19:169-194.
  30. Estevez ME, Lindgren KA, Bergethon PR. A novel three-dimensional tool for teaching human neuroanatomy. Anat Sci Educ 3:309-317.
  31. Finn GM, McLachlan JC. A qualitative study of student responses to body painting. Anat Sci Educ 3:33-38.
  32. Finn GM, White PM, Abdelbagi I. The impact of color and role on retention of knowledge: A body-painting study within undergraduate medicine. Anat Sci Educ 4:311-317.
  33. Fitzgerald JE, White MJ, Tang SW, Maxwell-Armstrong CA, James DK. Are we teaching sufficient anatomy at medical school? The opinions of newly qualified doctors. Clin Anat 21:718-724.
  34. Garg AX, Norman GR, Eva KW, Spero L, Sharan S. Is there any real virtue of virtual reality?: The minor role of multiple orientations in learning anatomy from computers. Acad Med 77:S97-S99.
  35. Guillot A, Champely S, Batier C, Thiriet P, Collet C. Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 12:491-507.
  36. Hafferty FW. Beyond curriculum reform: Confronting medicine's hidden curriculum. Acad Med 73:403-407.
  37. Hall ER, Davis RC, Weller R, Powney S, Williams SB. Doing dissections differently: A structured, peer-assisted learning approach to maximizing learning in dissections. Anat Sci Educ 6:56-66.
  38. Halliday N, O'Donoghue D, Klump KE, Thompson B. Human structure in six and one-half weeks: One approach to providing foundational anatomical competency in an era of compressed medical school anatomy curricula. Anat Sci Educ 8:149-157.
  39. Harris MB, Miller KC. Gender and perceptions of danger. Sex Roles 43:843-863.
  40. Hart LA, Wood MW, Weng HY. Mainstreaming alternatives in veterinary medical education: Resource development and curricular reform. J Vet Med Educ 32:473-480.
  41. Hartley J, Davies IK. Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews and advance organizers. Rev Educ Res 46:239-265.
  42. Hernández-Torrano D, Ali S, Chan CK. First year medical students’ learning style preferences and their correlation with performance in different subjects within the medical course. BMC Med Educ 17:131.
  43. Jamniczky HA, Cotton D, Paget M, Ramji Q, Lenz R, McLaughlin K, Coderre S, Ma IW. Cognitive load imposed by ultrasound-facilitated teaching does not adversely affect gross anatomy learning outcomes. Anat Sci Educ 10:144-151.
  44. Jittivadhna K, Ruenwongsa P, Panijpan B. Hand-held model of a sarcomere to illustrate the sliding filament mechanism in muscle contraction. Adv Physiol Educ 33:297-301.
  45. Jittivadhna K, Ruenwongsa P, Panijpan B. Beyond textbook illustrations: Hand-held models of ordered DNA and protein structures as 3D supplements to enhance student learning of helical biopolymers. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 38:359-364.
  46. Karpicke JD, Blunt JR. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science 331:772-775.
  47. Khalil MK, Paas F, Johnson TE, Payer AF. Interactive and dynamic visualization in teaching and learning of anatomy: A cognitive load perspective. Anat Rec 286B:8-14.
  48. Khalil MK, Mansour MM, Wilhite DR. Evaluation of cognitive loads imposed by traditional paper-based and innovative computer-based instructional strategies. J Vet Med Educ 37:353-357.
  49. Kinnison T, Forrest ND, Frean SP, Baillie S. Teaching bovine abdominal anatomy: Use of a haptic simulator. Anat Sci Educ 2:280-285.
  50. Knowles MS. Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. 1975.
  51. König HE, Liebich HG. Veterinary Anatomy of Domestic Mammals: Textbook and Colour Atlas. 2007.
  52. Kooloos JG, de Waal Malefijt MC, Ruiter DJ, Vorstenbosch MA. Loosely-guided, self-directed learning versus strictly-guided, station-based learning in gross anatomy laboratory sessions. Anat Sci Educ 5:340-346.
  53. Krontiris-Litowitz J. Using manipulatives to improve learning in the undergraduate neurophysiology curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ 27:109-119.
  54. Kumar AM, Murtaugh R, Brown D, Ballas T, Clancy E, Patronek G. Client donation program for acquiring dogs and cats to teach veterinary gross anatomy. J Vet Med Educ 28:73-77.
  55. Langlois J, Wells GA, Lecourtois M, Bergeron G, Yetisir E, Martin M. Sex differences in spatial abilities of medical graduates entering residency programs. Anat Sci Educ 6:368-375.
  56. Latorre R, Bainbridge D, Tavernor A, López Albors O. Plastination in anatomy learning: An experience at Cambridge University. J Vet Med Educ 43:226-234.
  57. Latorre RM, García-Sanz MP, Moreno M, Hernández F, Gil F, López O, Ayala MD, Ramírez G, Vázquez JM, Arencibia A, Henry RW. How useful is plastination in learning anatomy?. J Vet Med Educ 34:172-176.
  58. Latorre R, Rodríguez MJ. In search of clinical truths: Equine and comparative studies of anatomy. Equine Vet J 39:263-268.
  59. Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. The Psychology of Sex Differences. 1974.
  60. Martinsen S, Jukes N. Towards a humane veterinary education. J Vet Med Educ 32:454-460.
  61. McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: Ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ 40:243-253.
  62. McLachlan JC, Regan De Bere S. How we teach anatomy without cadavers. Clin Teach 1:49-52.
  63. McMenamin PG. Body painting as a tool in clinical anatomy teaching. Anat Sci Educ 1:139-144.
  64. Meinz E, Hambrick D. Deliberate practice is necessary but not sufficient to explain individual differences in piano sight-reading skill: The role of working memory capacity. Psychol Sci 21:914-919.
  65. Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81-97.
  66. Motoike HK, O’Kane RL, Lenchner E, Haspel C. Clay modeling as a method to learn human muscles: A community college study. Anat Sci Educ 2:19-23.
  67. Moxham BJ, Shaw H, Crowson R, Plaisant O. The future of clinical anatomy. Eur J Anat 15:29-46.
  68. Murphy RJ, Gray SA, Straja SR, Bogert MC. Student learning preferences and teaching implications. J Dent Educ 68:859-866.
  69. Nanjundaiah K, Chowdapurkar S. Body-painting: A tool which can be used to teach surface anatomy. J Clin Diagn Res 6:1405-1408.
  70. O’Mahony SM, Horgan M, O’Flynn S, O’Tuathaigh CM. Association between learning style preferences and anatomy assessment outcomes in graduate-entry and undergraduate medical students. Anat Sci Educ 9:391-399.
  71. Oh CS, Kim JY, Choe YH. Learning of cross-sectional anatomy using clay models. Anat Sci Educ 2:156-159.
  72. Olurinola O, Tayo O. Colour in learning: Its effect on the retention rate of graduate students. J Educ Pract 6:1-6.
  73. Op Den Akker JW, Bohnen A, Oudegeest WJ, Hillen B. Giving color to a new curriculum: Bodypaint as a tool in medical education. Clin Anat 15:356-362.
  74. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educ Psychol 38:1-4.
  75. Pan Y. Attentional capture by working memory contents. Can J Exp Psych 64:124-128.
  76. Pawlina W, Drake RL. New (or not-so-new) tricks for old dogs: Ultrasound imaging in anatomy laboratories. Anat Sci Educ 8:195-196.
  77. Peters M, Manning JT, Reimers S. The effects of sex, sexual orientation, and digit ratio (2D:4D) on mental rotation performance. Arch Sex Behav 36:251-260.
  78. Peterson RA. A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. J Consum Res 21:381-391.
  79. Pickering JD. Anatomy drawing screencasts: Enabling flexible learning for medical students. Anat Sci Educ 8:249-257.
  80. 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 6:216-224.
  81. RCVS. RCVS Day One Competencies. 2014.
  82. Rochford K. Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Med Educ 19:13-26.
  83. Roder CA, May SA. The hidden curriculum of veterinary education: Mediators and moderators of its effects. J Vet Med Educ 44:542-551.
  84. Roediger HL III, Butler AC. The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends Cognit Sci 15:20-27.
  85. Rosenshine B, Meister C. The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educ Leader 49:26-33.
  86. Russell WMS, Burch RL. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. 1959.
  87. Santos JR. Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Extension 37:1-5.
  88. Senos R, Ribeiro MS, Martins Kde S, Pereira LV, Mattos MF, Kfoury Júnior JR, Rodrigues MR. Acceptance of the bodypainting as supportive method to learn the surface locomotor apparatus anatomy of the horse. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 74:503-507.
  89. Smilek D, Dixon MJ, Cudahy C, Merikle PM. Synesthetic color experiences influence memory. Psychol Sci 13:548-552.
  90. 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 11:44-53.
  91. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 1981.
  92. Spence I, Wong P, Rusan M, Rastegar N. How color enhances visual memory for natural scenes. Psychol Sci 17:1-6.
  93. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 3:83-93.
  94. Sullivan GM, Artino AR Jr. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ 5:541-542.
  95. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognit Sci 12:257-285.
  96. Sweller J. Instructional Design in Technical Areas. 1999.
  97. Sweller J. Working memory, long-term memory, and instructional design. J Appl Res Mem Cognit 5:360-367.
  98. Sweller J, Chandler P. Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognit Instruct 8:351-362.
  99. Sweller J, Chandler P. Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognit Instruct 12:185-233.
  100. Topping DB. Gross anatomy videos: Student satisfaction, usage, and effect on student performance in a condensed curriculum. Anat Sci Educ 7:273-279.
  101. van Merriënboer JJ, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: Design principles and strategies. Med Educ 44:85-93.
  102. Waters JR, Van Meter 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.
  103. Waterston SW, Stewart IJ. Survey of clinicians' attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat 18:380-384.
  104. Watmough SD, O'Sullivan H, Taylor DC. Graduates from a reformed undergraduate medical curriculum based on Tomorrow's Doctors evaluate the effectiveness of their curriculum 6 years after graduation through interviews. BMC Med Educ 10:65.
  105. Woodmansey D. Vet schools defend using dead imported dogs for dissection. Vet Times 9 December 2016.
  106. Yammine K, Violato C. The effectiveness of physical models in teaching anatomy: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 21:883-895.
  107. Young JQ, Van Merriënboer J, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE guide no. 86. Med Teach 36:371-384.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Chang Chan AY, Custers EJFM, van Leeuwen MS, Bleys RLAW, Ten Cate O. Does an Additional Online Anatomy Course Improve Performance of Medical Students on Gross Anatomy Examinations?. Med Sci Educ 2019 Sep;29(3):697-707.
    doi: 10.1007/s40670-019-00751-zpubmed: 34457534google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,383 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.