Learning Dogfish Shark Anatomy Using 3D-Printed Models: A Feasibility Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A new, interactive, 3DPM to help biology students learn the anatomy of the dogfish shark chondrocranium and brain is described. A questionnaire on the 3DPMs that uncovered the perceptions of and experience interacting with the 3DPMs was presented twice to 32 students during a chondrocranium lab (week 1) and a brain lab (week 2). 29 students returned the questionnaire at the chondrocranium lab (week 1); 16 students returned the questionnaire at the brain lab (week 2). Authors discuss results of the questionnaires.

Abstract: because there were not 100% of the enrolled students (32) who returned the questionnaire, but only 90% (29) in chondrocranium lab and 50% (16) in brain lab, it seems misguiding to write: “32 students responded to a questionnaire…”. That information should be edited.

Introduction: well written

Material and methods: well written.

It is obviously too late for any experimental design change. However, for a future study, an analysis of the 3DPM and its effect on the student population should have a control group somewhere to give a reference to compare with.

Results: well written

Discussion: well written.

The comments above (materials and methods) should be discussed in the limitations. 

line 439-443 To get more student questionnaires, working with multiple groups of students can be done, however there will be a need to check that the student groups don't differ statistically (demographics need to be collected and compared) and both the instructions and instructors need to be the same to avoid any instruction/instructor effect on the results.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A brief summary 

The aim of the paper is an analysis of the usefulness teaching of the 3D-printed model and the possibilities that can be used with the example of S. acanthias chondrocranium and brain to improve student learning of comparative vertebrate neurobiology.

The main contributions are showing how the 3D-printed model of the dogfish shark chondrocranium and brain be designed to be interactive while retaining an accurate representation of anatomy.

The strengths of this article are in the precise and detailed presentation of the process of making the model, where the authors point out which anatomical parts they paid more attention to when making them so that they are easy to see and thus facilitate easier learning. Very important parts for understanding were prepared in a way to ensure interactivity in learning. In this way, the students could easily manipulate the model to see the most important things related to anatomy and evolutionary development and achieve understanding and conceptual understanding. Answers to Likert questions are supported by corresponding open-ended answers, which enables a better understanding of students' opinions. The results were discussed according to the specific features of the 3DPM design that the students found useful or not in their learning. In the end, Limitations and future research opportunities that will enable better teaching and learning are highlighted.

General concept comments

The research sample is small, which is understandable because it is a higher education course. The second iteration of research has quite a huge attrition of the sample. The results are presented only in the form of mean values and percentages of results without statistical analysis. Please we should think about presenting this work as a case study. I hope that it will be followed by a more comprehensive study of learning outcomes analysis based on the described approach in teaching with an analysis of student learning at several universities with a similar program related to the topic of this research, as your future research opportunities point to this aspect.

It is unclear how the control of the research is organized. It is necessary to describe the way of control, i.e. whether the usual presented dissected preparations of the dogfish shark chondrocranium and brain were demonstrated in parallel to the same group of students or whether the students had a learning experience with 3DPM of the dogfish shark chondrocranium and brain mast compared with demonstrated neurobiology dissections of other organisms.

Research question RQ2: a. partly overlaps with the second part of the RQ3 research question, so a reduction of the last research question or its modification would be useful. It would be good to discuss RQ1 more clearly and make a concrete conclusion about whether 3D printed models are a viable alternative or addition to standard learning aids.

In the conclusions, it would be good to point out what should be paid attention to when creating and using 3DPM in teaching and learning, not only related to this example and the teaching of comparative anatomy of animals but also based on the presenting results and the discussion.

It is necessary to equalize writing the reference according to the instructions.

Specific comments 

11-12 In the text of the summary, you emphasize "provide a low-cost alternative to expensive or fragile specimens", which is correct and with which I agree. However, I think that the significance related to protected and endangered or rare, vulnerable species, which are important to observe, should also be emphasized during biology education, which you mention in a later text.

13-14, 15-16 Avoid repeating information related to the importance and way of learning in a slightly different way.

20-21 It is unclear in what way the students compared 3DPM with preserved and dissected specimens (was sectioning done in parallel, or were dissected preparations shown, or were they compared with dissections of other organisms), so please supplement.

104 The reference (Thomas et al, 2020) given with the original photogrammetry data does not match the year given in the Figure 1 flowchart (Thomas et al, 2016).

243 When preparing the manuscript, make sure that the table is not separated into two pages, except if this will not be resolved during the final editing of the article.

Table 2. I think that the student's statement "it's very simple and I like that it's color coded" (p16b) is part of the previous answer with colour coding. Students' long answers should be checked to see if something else has been technically shifted concerning the question to which that open answer and the student's opinion are related.

391 – 395 I think it would be better to describe the results presented in this part of the discussion with the concrete answers of the students in the results, and in the discussion replace them with a general summary of the allegations, which will be the basis for further discussion.

398 In addition to just mentioning active learning, it would be better to suggest how to encourage better understanding through active learning, other than just by perfecting the way of preparing and using 3DPM in teaching and learning.  For instance, student discussion based on perceived problems or disagreements may be combined with the structured discovery of the learning of an individual anatomical part of the organism. In addition, it would be good to show the teachers' opinion on the use of 3DPM and their comparison with teaching with a demonstration of the dissected organism.

411 It would be good with context support, which the students highlighted as important, to also mention the importance of building conceptual links or their demarcation, i.e. the importance of interrelationships and/or positions during the learning of different morphological/anatomical structures and their functions.

415 It should be pointed out more clearly that it means the learning goals are meant with the exercises analyzed in this paper.

448 – 451 It would be better if such an important statement of the student was presented in the results, and its importance was emphasized in the discussion. Should be emphasized in the conclusions that there are highly sensitized students who independently perceive the positive environmental and ethical impact of using 3DPMs for this species, with connection to the conclusions which follow. 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a project wherein the authors have built and tested a tangible model of a specific anatomical feature of an organism. This has the potential of avoiding animal suffering and threats to biological diversity from the use of animals captured and killed for educational purposes. They tested the model in a two-part lab assignment, where students used it and responded to written survey questions about various aspects of their perceptions of the model. While clearly formulated, the paper currently suffers from a weak research rationale.

The main problem with the paper is that it does not identify a satisfactory gap in the existing research. In fact, the authors argue convincingly for the potential of 3D-printed models in anatomy education. There is indeed a vast literature on this, and the practice of teaching anatomical structures using tangible models has been around for thousands of years (Narang et al., 2021). Given this, I think the study contributes very little new knowledge as currently articulated. Hence, from the learning science point of view, I think the field has advanced way beyond a "feasibility study" on using a 3D-printed model to teach animal anatomy.

I suggest that the authors reconsider their purpose and research questions to provide a stronger articulation of how the study contributes to the educational field, and then revise the rest of the paper accordingly. For example, there may be specific challenges relating to some kinds of anatomical structures or teaching objectives, of which their dogfish shark lab is an example. Such special circumstances would justify RQ 1, but as it stands, no specific challenges has been articulated and anchored in the literature. Alternatively, the design process itself could be a contribution. This is hinted at by RQ 2 and 3, but the process would need be described systematically and discussed in terms of the relevant literature (perhaps a framework for design, or previously proposed design processes). As it stands, the process of design is implicit and heavily focused on the technical aspects, while the design decisions (including what learning objectives the product is intended to support) are either not given or provided as facts with little or no justification, apart from implicitly in the discussion section.

Other comments:
It is not quite clear what material the students had access to in the lab. This is partly because the description starts with the "typical set-up", but does not make it clear if the same material was available during the studied lab sessions (which would make the model a supplement, cf. RQ1) or if the lab was done without the specimen (which would make the model an alternative, cf. RQ1).

I suppose it is most likely that the model was used as a supplement, otherwise the questions where the students compare between the model and the specimen would not make sense. In that case, care should be taken in making claims about the performance of the model as a stand-alone teaching material since this has not been investigated. In addition, the argument that the model avoids the use of animals is weakened, which should also be acknowledged somehow.

Narang, P., Raju, B., Jumah, F., Konar, S. K., Nagaraj, A., Gupta, G., & Nanda, A. (2021). The evolution of 3D anatomical models: a brief historical overview. World Neurosurgery, 155, 135-143.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript. Knowing that the editorial decision was minor revision, I believe the authors have improved the manuscript sufficiently for being acceptable for publication. I provide a couple of comments for consideration.

RQ1 is still a little unclear. Given the design of the study, I think the RQ should not include "alternative", since this is not being investigated. In fact, in discussing future directions for research, the authors state that "A goal would be to evaluate whether or not the 3DPM is a viable alternative to dissected specimens, or at least an augmentation that would reduce the number of animals needed for dissection", which sound exactly like RQ1.
I think maybe "viable" is also a problem, because it seems to mean different things in the two statements. In this study, it seems to indicate "being acceptable to students and perceived as a useful complement", whereas in the future research it might mean "supporting students' learning to a similar (or higher) degree than traditional learning materials". Consider specifying these different connotations in preparing a final version.

I appreciate the addition of an explicit design considerations section.

I believe the model measures are a little too exact, in particular given the "measured roughly" formulation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf