Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Construction of Knowledge Through Doing: A Brachial Plexus Model from Pipe Cleaners

  • Original research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Medical students often struggle with the complexity of the brachial plexus, so instructions were developed for making a model of the brachial plexus from pipe cleaners following a didactic presentation of the material. Providing students the opportunity to construct the brachial plexus reduced cognitive overload, thus allowing students’ working memory to attend to pertinent information and create mental schema of the structures. This activity allows the students to actively engage with the material and have a model from which to study with minimal cost requirements. The model was initially utilized in the final unit of a stand-alone gross anatomy course, followed closely by both a unit exam and a cumulative standardized exam. The following year, the curriculum was significantly changed so that the activity was presented during the first unit of the course followed closely by the unit exam and the cumulative final exam several months later. Students were surveyed on their opinions of the activity, perceived understanding of the material, and utilization of the model. Results demonstrated that students enjoyed the activity and felt it improved their understanding of the brachial plexus, especially in the second scenario. Students responded positively to the activity and felt that it would make a good study tool. In the second scenario, students also reported using the model to study throughout the semester. These results indicate that this low-cost model was helpful to the students, particularly if they need to study the material over an extended period of time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brown DL. Brachial plexus anesthesia: an analysis of options. Yale J Biol Med. 1993;66:415–31.

    Google Scholar 

  2. McMenamin P. A simple interactive teaching aid for medical undergraduates studying the brachial plexus. Med Teach. 2005;27(2):169–71.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lefroy H, Burdon-Bailey V, Bhangu A, Abrahams P. From a novel technique for teaching the brachial plexus. Clin Teach. 2011;8:196–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mayer RE, Moreno R. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol. 2003;38(1):43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instr Sci. 2004;32:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wulf G, Shea C. Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002;9(2):185–211.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson J, Graham A. A problem in medical education: is there an information overload? Med Educ. 1980;14:4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Neame RLB. The preclinical course of study: help or hindrance. J Med Educ. 1984;59:699–707.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Custers EJFM. Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: a review study. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2010;15:109–28.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Doomernick D, van Goor H, Kooloos J, ten Broek R. Longitudinal retention of anatomical knowledge in second year medical students. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;1–7.

  11. Bahrick HP. Semantic memory content in permastore: fifty years of memory for Spanish learned in school. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1984;113(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Graffam B. Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning implementation. Med Teach. 2007;29(1):38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Des MJ. A student-centered, problem-based curriculum: 5 years’ experience. Can Med Assoc. 1993;148(9):1567–72.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Richardson D, Birge B. Teaching physiology by combined passive (pedagogical) and active (andragogical) methods. Adv Physiol Educ. 1995;13(1):66–74.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rich S, Keim R, Shuler C. Problem-based learning versus a traditional educational methodology: a comparison of preclinical and clinical periodontics performance. J Dent Educ. 2005;66:649–62.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Freeman S, Eddy S, McDonough M, Smith M, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth M. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

  17. Roediger H III, Karpicke J. The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006;1(3):181–210.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kerfoot B, DeWolf W, Masser B, Church P, Federman D. Spaced education improves the retention of clinical knowledge by medical students: a randomized controlled trial. Med Educ. 2007;41:23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kerfoot B. Learning benefits of on-line spaced education persist for 2 years. J Urol. 2009;181:2671–3.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kerfoot B, Fu Y, Baker H, Connelly D, Ritchey M, Genega E. Online spaced education generates transfer and improves long-term retention of diagnostic skills: a randomized controlled trial. Am Coll Surg. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.04.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kerfoot B, Shaffer K, McMahon G, Baker H, Kirdar J, Kanter S, Corbett E, Berkow R, Krupat E, Armstrong E. 2011. Online “spaced education progress-testing” of students to confront two upcoming challenges to medical schools. Acad Med. 2011;86(3):300–306.

  22. Older J. Anatomy: a must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon. 2004;2:79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  23. McLachlan JC, Gligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ. 2004;38:418–24.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hortsch M. From microscopes to virtual reality – how our teaching of histology is changing. J Cytol Histol. 2013;4:e108. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7099.1000e108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Willis J. The neuroscience of joyful education. Educational Leadership. 2007;64.

  26. Anggoro S, Sopandi W, Sholehuddin M. Influence of joyful learning on elementary school students’ attitudes toward science. J Phys: Conf Ser. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/812/1/012001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Myers D, Arya L, Verma A, Polseno D, Buchanan E. Pelvic anatomy for obstetrics and gynecology residents An experimental study using clay models. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(2):321–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(00)01098-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Patel J, Rosentsveyg J, Gabbur N, Marquez S. Clay modeling as a haptic model to teach a hysterectomy procedure and pelvic anatomy to obstetrics and gynecology residents. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:20. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000447276.05261.07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. DeHoff ME, Clark KL, Meganathan K. Learning outcomes and student-perceived value of clay modeling and cat dissection in undergraduate human anatomy and physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35(1):68–75. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00094.2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Oh CS, Kim JY, Choe YH. Learning of cross-sectional anatomy using clay models. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(4):156–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kooloos JG, Schepens-Franke AN, Bergman EM, Donders RA, Vorstenbosch MA. Anatomical knowledge gain through a clay-modeling exercise compared to live and video observations. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7(6):420–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Husmann PR. Medical student study strategies in relation to class size and course length. HAPS Educator. 2018;22(3):187–98. https://doi.org/10.21692/haps.2018.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. First year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;30:13–6. https://doi.org/10.1153/advan.00045.2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hawk TF, Shah AJ. Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decis Sci J Innov Educ. 2007;5(1):1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Constantinidou F, Baker S. Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging. Brain Lang. 2002;82:296–311.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Massa LJ, Mayer RE. Testing the ATI hypothesis: should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Sci Direct. 2006;16(4):321–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Publ Interest. 2009;9:105–19.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bjork RA. Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In: Metcalfe J, Shimamura AP, editors. Metacognition: knowing about knowing. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1994. p. 185–205.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bjork EL, Bjork RA. Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In: Gernsbacher MA, Pomerantz JR, editors. Psychology and the real world: essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Worth; 2014. p. 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express our gratitude to Valerie O’Loughlin for her input on this project. We would like to thank all of the students who participated in the surveys that led to this work. We would also like to thank Jackie Gentry for her help in administering the surveys to students on the Bloomington campus.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine, 3200 Cold Spring Rd, Indianapolis, IN, 46222, USA

    Christine I. Yu

  2. Indiana University School of Medicine, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Polly R. Husmann

Authors
  1. Christine I. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Polly R. Husmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine I. Yu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no competing interest.

Research Involving Human Participants

All research was completed in alignment with accepted ethics of Human Subjects Research (Indiana University IRB protocol #1604535314).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, C.I., Husmann, P.R. Construction of Knowledge Through Doing: A Brachial Plexus Model from Pipe Cleaners. Med.Sci.Educ. 31, 1053–1064 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01274-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01274-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation