Scholarlink

Background <p>Understanding the organization of afferent and efferent spinal cord pathways can be challenging for students due to their complex spatial relationships. This study aimed to develop a three-dimensional (3D) educational model demonstrating these pathways and to compare student learning outcomes between model-based instruction and conventional slide-based teaching.</p> Methods <p>A pre-test/post-test educational study was conducted with second-year dental students (<i>n</i> = 60). Transverse sections of the C4 and T7 vertebrae were designed and 3D-printed at four times their anatomical size. A spinal cord model made of modeling clay was placed within the vertebral canal, and afferent and efferent pathways were represented using color-coded cables. Students completed a 15-item multiple-choice pre-test assessing baseline knowledge of spinal cord pathways and were allocated into two groups. Group 1 (<i>n</i> = 30) received conventional slide-based instruction, while Group 2 (<i>n</i> = 30) was taught using the 3D model. After the instructional sessions, students completed the same test as a post-test. Within-group and between-group comparisons were analyzed using paired-sample and independent-sample t-tests.</p> Results <p>Both instructional approaches resulted in significant improvements in post-test scores. In the slide-based instruction group, mean scores increased from 5.00 ± 1.98 to 8.47 ± 2.54 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). In the 3D model group, mean scores increased from 4.77 ± 2.39 to 10.27 ± 2.29 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). The mean improvement was significantly greater in the 3D model group (5.50 ± 3.07) compared with the slide-based group (3.47 ± 2.70) (<i>p</i> = 0.007). The effect size for the difference between groups was moderate to large (Cohen’s d ≈ 0.70).</p> Conclusion <p>Both instructional methods improved short-term knowledge of spinal cord pathways; however, model-based instruction was associated with greater learning gains. These findings suggest that three-dimensional models may serve as a useful supplementary tool in neuroanatomy education. Further studies using validated assessment tools and evaluating long-term knowledge retention are needed to confirm these findings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of 3D model–based and slide-based teaching for afferent and efferent spinal cord pathways: a pre-test/post-test study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月4日

查看全文
  • Ayşe Ömerli̇,
  • Hatice Kübra Aslantaş

摘要

Background

Understanding the organization of afferent and efferent spinal cord pathways can be challenging for students due to their complex spatial relationships. This study aimed to develop a three-dimensional (3D) educational model demonstrating these pathways and to compare student learning outcomes between model-based instruction and conventional slide-based teaching.

Methods

A pre-test/post-test educational study was conducted with second-year dental students (n = 60). Transverse sections of the C4 and T7 vertebrae were designed and 3D-printed at four times their anatomical size. A spinal cord model made of modeling clay was placed within the vertebral canal, and afferent and efferent pathways were represented using color-coded cables. Students completed a 15-item multiple-choice pre-test assessing baseline knowledge of spinal cord pathways and were allocated into two groups. Group 1 (n = 30) received conventional slide-based instruction, while Group 2 (n = 30) was taught using the 3D model. After the instructional sessions, students completed the same test as a post-test. Within-group and between-group comparisons were analyzed using paired-sample and independent-sample t-tests.

Results

Both instructional approaches resulted in significant improvements in post-test scores. In the slide-based instruction group, mean scores increased from 5.00 ± 1.98 to 8.47 ± 2.54 (p < 0.001). In the 3D model group, mean scores increased from 4.77 ± 2.39 to 10.27 ± 2.29 (p < 0.001). The mean improvement was significantly greater in the 3D model group (5.50 ± 3.07) compared with the slide-based group (3.47 ± 2.70) (p = 0.007). The effect size for the difference between groups was moderate to large (Cohen’s d ≈ 0.70).

Conclusion

Both instructional methods improved short-term knowledge of spinal cord pathways; however, model-based instruction was associated with greater learning gains. These findings suggest that three-dimensional models may serve as a useful supplementary tool in neuroanatomy education. Further studies using validated assessment tools and evaluating long-term knowledge retention are needed to confirm these findings.