Less is more: Development and evaluation of an interactive e‐atlas to support anatomy learning

Abstract

An Interactive electronic Atlas (IeA) was developed to assist first-year nursing students with interpretation of laboratory-based prosected cadaveric material. It was designed, using pedagogically sound principles, as a student-centered resource accessible to students from a wide range of learning backgrounds. It consisted of a highly simplified interactive interface limited to essential anatomical structures and was intended for use in a blended learning situation. The IeA's nine modules mirrored the body systems covered in a Nursing Biosciences course, with each module comprising a maximum of 10 pages using the same template: an image displaying a cadaveric specimen and, in most cases, a corresponding anatomical model with navigation panes (menus) on one side. Cursor movement over the image or clicking the menu highlighted the structure with a transparent overlay and revealed a succinct functional description. The atlas was complemented by a multiple-choice database of nearly 1,000 questions using IeA images. Students' perceptions of usability and utility were measured by survey (n = 115; 57% of the class) revealing mean access of 2.3 times per week during the 12-week semester and a median time of three hours of use. Ratings for usability and utility were high, with means ranging between 4.24 and 4.54 (five-point Likert scale; 5 = strongly agree). Written responses told a similar story for both usability and utility. The role of providing basic computer-assisted learning support for a large first-year class is discussed in the context of current research into student-centered resources and blended learning in human anatomy.

Improving Online Interactions: Lessons from an Online Anatomy Course with a Laboratory for Undergraduate Students

“…“Face‐to‐face” describes the traditional teaching setting where instructors and students are present in the same physical space at the same time. Anatomy education researchers have documented the use of CAI tools for F2F students in the form of online discussion forums (Durham, et al, ; McNulty et al, , Choudhury and Gouldsborough, ; Green and Hughes ; Green et al, ), anatomy e‐learning modules (Green et al, ; Raynor and Iggulden, ), online anatomical illustrations (Durham et al, ), interactive photographs (O'Byrne et al, ; Doubleday et al, ; Guy et al, ), online lecture captures (Bacro et al, ; McNulty et al, ; Nieder and Borges, ; Bacro et al, ; Beale et al, ; Singh and Min, ) and 3D computer models (Durham et al, ; Tallitsch et al, ; Wright, ).…”

The skeletons in our closet: E‐learning tools and what happens when one side does not fit all

“…Results, such as these, emphasize that the purchase, implementation and acceptance of e‐learning tools should not be made based on instinct or because such tools represent a “more modern” approach to education, but should be supported by statistically reliable scientific evidence (Khot et al, ; Preece et al, ; Trelease, ). It is no longer sufficient to: (1) design and neglect to test the effectiveness of learning tools, and instead providing conjecture on their effectiveness and ways they could be implemented in education (see for example Adams and Wilson, ); and (2) design learning tools and conclude they are effective based on user opinion feedback only (for example, see O'Byrne et al, ; Guy et al, ). Without comparative studies that present statistically reliable evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of different commercial e‐learning tools or compare those tools to more traditional methods of teaching anatomy, such as physically manipulating a skeleton, educators cannot make informed decisions about the tools they use.…”

Educational software usability: Artifact or Design?

“…Is there an educational goal we are trying to achieve with these tools, and if so, what are the metrics of success to which we ascribe? Attempts to address these questions within the anatomical sciences have generated a number of studies that fall into four distinct categories for measuring e‐learning tool success, including: (A) user satisfaction (O'Bryne et al, ; Hassinger et al, ; Venali et al, 2010; Wright and Hendricson, ; Guy et al, ); (B) learning outcomes (Nicholson et al, ; Hu et al, ; Levinson et al, 2009; Khot et al, ); (C) user satisfaction in combination with learner knowledge acquisition (Codd and Choudhury, ; Keedy et al, ; Alfieri et al, ; Preece et al, ; Rich and Guy, ; Hoyek et al, ; Stewart and Choudhury, ; Allen et al, ; Mathiowetz et al, ); and (D) design principles (Nielsen, ). The studies that fall into the last category can be further subdivided based on whether said e‐learning tools are designed using sound pedagogical and cognitive principles (Allen et al, ) or if they are designed based on the aesthetics of the rendering technology itself (Crossingham et al, ; Nguyen and Wilson, ; Lu et al, ; Sergovich et al, ; Yeung et al, ; Adams and Wilson, ; Richardson‐Hatcher et al, ).…”

“…In the anatomical sciences there are a number of studies that have assessed aspects of e‐learning tool usability (Foreman et al, ; Gould et al, ; O'Bryne et al, ; Hassigner et al, 2010; Lu et al, ; Doubleday et al, ; Cornwall and Pollard, ; de Góes et al, , Guy et al, ). What all these studies have in common is they involved e‐learning tools that were designed and developed by professors and students at specific universities.…”

“…What all these studies have in common is they involved e‐learning tools that were designed and developed by professors and students at specific universities. The majority of these studies qualitatively assessed user perceptions of overall e‐learning tool usability through questionnaires that were administered following e‐learning tool interaction (Foreman et al, ; Gould et al, ; O'Bryne et al, ; Hassigner et al, 2010; Lu et al, ; de Góes et al, 2015; Guy et al, ). However, while satisfaction is an important attribute of usability, it represents only one aspect of an e‐learning tool's overall usability, and the concern is that comprehensive usability testing itself can only be accomplished if it is evaluated in the context of a well‐defined user task, a specific factor that is absent from satisfaction surveys.…”