From bones to bytes: Do manipulable 3D models have added value in osteology education compared to static images?

BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, anatomy education has been revolutionized through digital media, resulting in innovative computer-based 3D models to supplement or even replace traditional learning materials. However, the added value of these models in terms of learning performance remains unclear. Multiple mechanisms may contribute to the inconclusive findings. This study focusses on the impact of active manipulation on learning performance and the influence that posttest design features may have on the outcome measurement. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of two research conditions: studying on the base of a computer-based manipulable pelvic bone model versus online static images of the same model. Pretests focused on students' baseline anatomy knowledge and spatial ability. Three knowledge posttests were administered: a test based on a physical pelvic bone model, and two computer-based tests based on static images and a manipulable model. Mental effort was measured with the Paas mental effort rating scale. RESULTS: In the static images-based posttest, significantly higher knowledge scores were attained by participants studying in the static images research condition (p = 0.043). No other significant knowledge-related differences could be observed. In the manipulable model-based posttest, spatial ability rather than the research condition seemed to have an influential role on the outcome scores (r = 0.18, p = 0.049). Mental effort scores reflected no difference between both research conditions. CONCLUSION: The research results are counter-intuitive, especially because no significant differences were found in the physical model-based posttest in students who studied with the manipulable model. Explaining the results builds on differences in anatomical models requiring less or more active manipulation to process spatial information. The pelvic bone manipulable model, and by extension osteology models, might be insufficiently complex to provide added value compared with static images. Moreover, the posttest modality should be chosen with care since spatial ability rather than anatomy knowledge may be measured.