Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Surg J (N Y) 2021; 07(03): e259-e264
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1733992
Original Article

Anatomical Models versus Nontactile Distanced Learning in Otolaryngology Teaching

Aashish Pandya
1   Medical Education Department, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
,
Dylan Mistry
1   Medical Education Department, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
,
David Owens
2   Medical Education Department, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Medical schools in the United Kingdom are under increasing pressure to provide more streamlined, applicable teaching due to rising numbers of trainee doctors but are failing to meet their educational need for otolaryngology. The recent novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed additional pressures on medical schools to adapt the medium over which the curriculum is delivered. The use of tactile learning with three-dimensional models and distanced learning via videoconferencing may provide alternative teaching methods to meet otolaryngology undergraduate learning requirements. This pilot study aimed to assess the differences in undergraduate student attitudes toward tactile learning via nontactile distanced learning and review their acceptability among this cohort.

Methods Two groups of medical students observed a single educational event on the larynx and management of the airway. The learning opportunity was delivered in a lecture format with the lecturer demonstrating on an anatomical model of the larynx. Group one (tactile group) had an identical model to interact with during the lecture and were present within the lecture theater; group two (nontactile group) did not and observed the lecture via video link. Students were asked to rank their opinion to several statements about the session based on an 11-point Likert's scale and give qualitative feedback.

Results All ranked feedback was mainly positive. Tactile learning was statistically equivalent to nontactile learning based on the ranked feedback from the students, except for “improvement in anatomical knowledge,” for which the students believed tactile learning was superior (p = 0.017). A variety of qualitative feedback was received by both groups.

Conclusion This pilot study provides evidence for the acceptability among students of the use of nontactile distanced learning to deliver the otolaryngology undergraduate curriculum compared with tactile learning. This can provide the basis for larger studies to assess the educational impact of these different teaching methods.

Keywords

medical education - anatomy - tactile learning - distanced learning - models - otolaryngology

Authorship

Concept and design: A.P. and D.O.


Data collection: A.P.


Data analysis and interpretation: – A.P. and D.M.


Drafting article: A.P. and D.M.


Approval for final submission: – A.P., D.M., and D.O.


Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was exempted after discussion with Cardiff University's Student Selected Component leads.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 13 February 2021

Accepted: 01 July 2021

Article published online:
14 September 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 General Medical Council. Promoting excellence: standards for Medical Education and training. Accessed July 16, 2021 at: https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/Promoting_excellence_standards_for_medical_education_and_training_0715.pdf_61939165.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lempp HK. Perceptions of dissection by students in one medical school: beyond learning about anatomy. A qualitative study. Med Educ 2005; 39 (03) 318-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Howe A, Campion P, Searle J, Smith H. New perspectives–approaches to medical education at four new UK medical schools. BMJ 2004; 329 (7461): 327-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Powell J, Cooles FA, Carrie S, Paleri V. Is undergraduate medical education working for ENT surgery? A survey of UK medical school graduates. J Laryngol Otol 2011; 125 (09) 896-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ferguson GR, Bacila IA, Swamy M. Does current provision of undergraduate education prepare UK medical students in ENT? A systematic literature review. BMJ Open 2016; 6 (04) e010054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Khan MM, Saeed SR. Provision of undergraduate otorhinolaryngology teaching within General Medical Council approved UK medical schools: what is current practice?. J Laryngol Otol 2012; 126 (04) 340-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sandhu P, de Wolf M. The impact of COVID-19 on the undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Educ Online 2020; 25 (01) 1764740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Neil JF. Otolaryngology in the curriculum. J R Soc Med 1979; 72 (08) 551-552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Powell S. So you want to be an ENT surgeon. BMJ 2007; 334: s205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Donnelly MJ, Quraishi MS, McShane DP. ENT and general practice: a study of paediatric ENT problems seen in general practice and recommendations for general practitioner training in ENT in Ireland. Ir J Med Sci 1995; 164 (03) 209-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Griffiths E. Incidence of ENT problems in general practice. J R Soc Med 1979; 72 (10) 740-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sharma A, Machen K, Clarke B, Howard D. Is undergraduate otorhinolaryngology teaching relevant to junior doctors working in accident and emergency departments?. J Laryngol Otol 2006; 120 (11) 949-951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chawdhary G, Ho EC, Minhas SS. Undergraduate ENT education: what students want. Clin Otolaryngol 2009; 34 (06) 584-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rainsbury D, Barbour A, Mahadevan V. College launches National Anatomy Project. The Royal College of Surgeons of England 2007; 89 (01) 19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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 (04) 216-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fredieu JR, Kerbo J, Herron M, Klatte R, Cooke M. Anatomical models: a digital revolution. Med Sci Educ 2015; 25 (02) 183-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kerby J, Shukur ZN, Shalhoub J. The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by medical students. Clin Anat 2011; 24 (04) 489-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Alnabelsi T, Al-Hussaini A, Owens D. Comparison of traditional face-to-face teaching with synchronous e-learning in otolaryngology emergencies teaching to medical undergraduates: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272 (03) 759-763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Lou Y. et al. How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 2004; 74 (03) 379-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Manches A, O'Malley C. Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 2012; 16 (04) 405-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Should We Continue Teaching Anatomy by Dissection When. Anat Rec B New Anat 2006;289(06):
    PubMed
  • 22 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 (01) 68-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wu HK, Shah P. Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Sci Educ 2004; 88 (03) 465-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar