Neuroanatomy education is a challenging field which could benefit from modern innovations, such as augmented reality (AR) applications. This study investigates the differences on test scores, cognitive load, and motivation after neuroanatomy learning using AR applications or using cross-sections of the brain. Prior to two practical assignments, a pretest (extended matching questions, double-choice questions and a test on cross-sectional anatomy) and a mental rotation test (MRT) were completed. Sex and MRT scores were used to stratify students over the two groups. The two practical assignments were designed to study (1) general brain anatomy and (2) subcortical structures. Subsequently, participants completed a posttest similar to the pretest and a motivational questionnaire. Finally, a focus group interview was conducted to appraise participants' perceptions. Medical and biomedical students (n = 31); 19 males (61.3%) and 12 females (38.7%), mean age 19.2 ± 1.7 years participated in this experiment. Students who worked with cross-sections (n = 16) showed significantly more improvement on test scores than students who worked with GreyMapp-AR (P = 0.035) (n = 15). Further analysis showed that this difference was primarily caused by significant improvement on the cross-sectional questions. Students in the cross-section group, moreover, experienced a significantly higher germane (P = 0.009) and extraneous cognitive load (P = 0.016) than students in the GreyMapp-AR group. No significant differences were found in motivational scores. To conclude, this study suggests that AR applications can play a role in future anatomy education as an add-on educational tool, especially in learning three-dimensional relations of anatomical structures. Anat Sci Educ 13: 350-362.
Students in a problem-based curriculum seem to become better self-directed learners during the years of training.
Assessment is an important aspect of medical education because it tests students' competence and motivates them to study. Various assessment methods, with and without images, are used in the study of anatomy. In this study, we investigated the use of extended matching questions (EMQs). To gain insight into the influence of images on the validity of test items, we focused on students' cognitive processes while they answered questions with and without images. Seventeen first-year medical students answered EMQs about gross anatomy, combined with either labeled images or answer lists, while thinking aloud. The participants' verbal reports were transcribed verbatim and then coded. Initial codes were based on a task analysis and were adapted into final codes during the coding process. Results showed that students used more cues from EMQs with images and visualized more often in EMQs with answer lists. Ready knowledge and verbal reasoning were used equally often in both conditions. In conclusion, EMQs with and without images elicit different results in this think aloud experiment, indicating different cognitive processes. They seem to measure different skills, making them valid for different testing purposes. The take-home message for anatomy teachers is that questions without images seem to test the quality of students' mental images while questions with images test their ability to interpret visual information. It makes sense to use both response formats in tests. Using images from clinical practice instead of anatomical drawings will help to improve test validity.
Background: This research focuses on the relation between individual study and group discussion. In a problem-based curriculum, it is expected that the way students prepare themselves during individual study (i.e., search and prepare the literature) will influence the quality of the reporting phase. Purpose: To investigate whether searching for different literature resources and preparing the literature (by making summaries to explain the literature) affects the quality of the reporting phase. Method: A 23-item questionnaire was developed, reflecting 2 factors of the search phase and 1 factor of the preparing phase of the individual study. Two factors (breadth and depth of the discussion) reflected the reporting phase. Participants were 1st-year students (N = 195, 90%) at the Medical School of the Maastricht University in the Netherlands during the academic year 1997-1998. Results: Regression analyses show that the search phase and the preparing phase explained 29% of the variance of the breadth and 38% of the depth of the reporting phase.Conclusions: Searching different literature resources has a small and negative impact on the quality of the reporting phase. However, preparing extensively for the next tutorial meeting is very important, especially for the depth of the reporting phase. Therefore, when new knowledge must be integrated in the tutorial group, students must be taught to prepare themselves by making summaries that are useful and effective during the discussion.
An experiment was conducted in the context of a problem-based learning course to investigate the influence of a learning-goal-free problem scenario on the quality and quantity of individual study. In half of the tutorial groups, the problem scenario was constructed in such a way that it provided useful learning issues (goal-specified condition), whereas in the other half of the tutorial groups, the problem scenario did not provide learning issues (goal-free condition). It was demonstrated that students in the goal-free condition read more articles, studied longer, and spent more time reporting the studied literature than their peers in the goal-specified condition. These findings suggest that the use of goal-free problems has a positive effect on the students' individual study and the extensiveness of the tutorial group meeting.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.