Anat Cell Biol.  2019 Sep;52(3):296-301. 10.5115/acb.19.016.

Medical student's perception to different types of set induction in anatomy lectures

• Narayanan
• Shankar N
• Ananthy V

• KMID: 2459545
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5115/acb.19.016

Abstract

Set induction refers to the process of using a thought-provoking statement, interesting fact, or an audio-visual stimulus at the beginning of lecture to gain student's attention and give an overview about the lecture topic. In the present study, students were introduced to three types of set induction namely narratives, food-based analogies and humor-based images or activities at the beginning of anatomy lecture and their response to it is collected and analyzed. The objective of the study is to estimate the difference in a questionnaire-based perception score between the three different types of set induction; estimate sex differences in the questionnaire-based perception score. Students rated the validated, 7-item perception questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale. Students felt that food-based analogies and humor-based images were more interesting, motivated them to participate in lecture-discussion than the narrative set induction. The familiarity of set induction varied between all the three different types of set induction. There was no significant difference in the perception of different types of set induction between male and female undergraduate students. Based on the student's feedback, it could also serve as a memory aid and ease the students learning experience. Majority of students responded positively to the use of set induction and recommended for its use in future classes.

Keyword

Analogies; Food; Humor; Set induction

MeSH Terms

Female
Humans
Learning
Lectures*
Male
Memory
Recognition (Psychology)
Sex Characteristics

Reference

1. Aubertine HE. The set induction process and its application in teaching. J Educ Res. 1968; 61:363–367.

2. Hargie O. Skilled interpersonal communication: research, theory and practice. 5th ed. Hove: Routledge;2011.

3. Gagne RM, Wager WW, Golas KG, Keller JM. Principles of instructional design. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth;2005.

4. Schuck RF. The impact of set induction in a quasi-classroom setting. Teach Educ. 1982; 18:19–29.

5. Ng JY. Combining Peyton's four-step approach and Gagne's instructional model in teaching slit-lamp examination. Perspect Med Educ. 2014; 3:480–485. PMID: 25294337.

6. Payne L. Student engagement: three models for its investigation. J Further Higher Educ. 2017; 43:641–657.

7. Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C. Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer;2012.

8. Pizzimenti MA, Axelson RD. Assessing student engagement and self-regulated learning in a medical gross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2015; 8:104–110. PMID: 24845421.

9. Kusurkar RA, Croiset G, Ten Cate TJ. Twelve tips to stimulate intrinsic motivation in students through autonomy-supportive classroom teaching derived from self-determination theory. Med Teach. 2011; 33:978–982. PMID: 22225435.

10. Cook DA, Artino AR Jr. Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Med Educ. 2016; 50:997–1014. PMID: 27628718.

11. McLean M. Introducing a reward system in assessment in histology: a comment on the learning strategies it might engender. BMC Med Educ. 2001; 1:7. PMID: 11741511.

12. Bochennek K, Wittekindt B, Zimmermann SY, Klingebiel T. More than mere games: a review of card and board games for medical education. Med Teach. 2007; 29:941–948. PMID: 18158669.

13. Anyanwu EG. Anatomy adventure: a board game for enhancing understanding of anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2014; 7:153–160. PMID: 23878076.

14. Janssen A, Shaw T, Goodyear P, Kerfoot BP, Bryce D. A little healthy competition: using mixed methods to pilot a team-based digital game for boosting medical student engagement with anatomy and histology content. BMC Med Educ. 2015; 15:173. PMID: 26459198.

15. Ziegler JB. Use of humour in medical teaching. Med Teach. 1998; 20:341–348.

16. Liu YP, Sun L, Wu XF, Yang Y, Zhang CT, Zhou HL, Quan XQ. Use of humour in medical education: a survey of students and teachers at a medical school in China. BMJ Open. 2017; 7:e018853.

17. Sutkin G, Wagner E, Harris I, Schiffer R. What makes a good clinical teacher in medicine? A review of the literature. Acad Med. 2008; 83:452–466. PMID: 18448899.

18. Gentner D, Markman AB. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. Am Psychol. 1997; 52:45–56.

19. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P. The analogical mind. Am Psychol. 1997; 52:35–44. PMID: 9017931.

20. Pena GP, Andrade-Filho Jde S. Analogies in medicine: valuable for learning, reasoning, remembering and naming. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010; 15:609–619. PMID: 18528776.

21. Frieden IJ, Dolev JC. Medical analogies: their role in teaching dermatology to medical professionals and patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005; 53:863–866. PMID: 16243140.

22. Brown S, Salter S. Analogies in science and science teaching. Adv Physiol Educ. 2010; 34:167–169. PMID: 21098382.

23. Liew SC, Sidhu J, Barua A. The relationship between learning preferences (styles and approaches) and learning outcomes among pre-clinical undergraduate medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2015; 15:44. PMID: 25889887.

24. White C, Bradley E, Martindale J, Roy P, Patel K, Yoon M, Worden MK. Why are medical students 'checking out' of active learning in a new curriculum? Med Educ. 2014; 48:315–324. PMID: 24528466.

25. Easton G. How medical teachers use narratives in lectures: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16:3. PMID: 26742778.

26. Ventura S, Onsman A. The use of popular movies during lectures to aid the teaching and learning of undergraduate pharmacology. Med Teach. 2009; 31:662–664. PMID: 19811151.

27. McMenamin PG. A simple interactive teaching aid for medical undergraduates studying the brachial plexus. Med Teach. 2005; 27:169–171. PMID: 16019340.

28. McMenamin PG. Body painting as a tool in clinical anatomy teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2008; 1:139–144. PMID: 19177400.

29. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004; 74:59–109.

30. Nguyen HV, Giang TT. Gender difference in academic planning activity among medical students. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e55845. PMID: 23418467.

31. Nuzhat A, Salem RO, Al Hamdan N, Ashour N. Gender differences in learning styles and academic performance of medical students in Saudi Arabia. Med Teach. 2013; 35 Suppl 1:S78–S82. PMID: 23581901.

32. Park JS, Kim DH, Chung MS. Anatomy comic strips. Anat Sci Educ. 2011; 4:275–279. PMID: 21634024.

33. Carnegie JA. The use of limericks to engage student interest and promote active learning in an undergraduate course in functional anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2012; 5:90–97. PMID: 22334459.

34. Dickson KA, Stephens BW. It's all in the mime: Actions speak louder than words when teaching the cranial nerves. Anat Sci Educ. 2015; 8:584–592. PMID: 25952466.

35. Pelaccia T, Viau R. Motivation in medical education. Med Teach. 2017; 39:136–140. PMID: 27866457.