Virtual reality and brain anatomy: a randomised trial of e-learning instructional designs

Levinson, Anthony J; Weaver, Bruce; Garside, Sarah; McGinn, Holly; Norman, Geoffrey R.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02694.x

Cited by 176 publications

(178 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

166

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(1) How people learn, how non-cognitive factors like motivation or stress (Harvey et al 2010) interact with learning, how individual differences like gender or ethnicity (see this issue) affect learning, how individual differences and teaching interact (Garg et al 2002;Levinson et al 2007), are subject of ongoing research and are an appropriately large share of the studies we do in education. (2) Educational outcomes are very diverse, and interventions that improve some outcomes may reduce others (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is experimental research passé

Norman

2010

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In perusing the contents of this issue, I discovered that, once again, the majority of the papers are not experimental. There are several qualitative studies-of teachers' attitudes to student feedback, reflective learning for continuing education, residents' perceptions of outpatient teaching, and assessment expert's view of the framework for assessments, cohort study looking at predictors of motivation for medicine, a survey of teachers' perceptions of student feedback, a correlational study of concurrent validity of a personality test, a review paper on the issue of whether Asian students are rote learners, and 3 randomized trials. One looked at the use of simulation in addition to a PBL session for management of respiratory and cardiac distress, another at web-based learning, and a third examined the effect of testing on retention of CPR skills. So of the 11 original studies, 3 were experimental.I suppose I should be pleased. Todres et al. (2007), in a widely cited review of 2 years of Medical Education and Medical Teacher articles, found only 5% were randomized controlled trials. So at 3/11 = 27%, we're doing much better.Better? Pardon a second. Should we be striving for 100% randomized trials? Is this any measure of quality of research? After all, a study of faculty perception of student feedback is unlikely to benefit from having a control group (randomized of course) who were not given feedback and then asked their perceptions of not getting feedback. For that matter, randomizing students to be Asian or not is a bit impractical. In short, the variety of research designs in the papers in this issue reflect the nature of the research questions asked, which really span the gamut of educational research, and only a few are amenable to experimentation.But what of quality? One carryover from clinical research is a perverse hierarchy of research designs where randomized controlled trial is at the top in quality, case series is at the bottom, and cohort studies are somewhere in the middle. The first problem with this approach is that it is a very limited taxonomy, suitable for epidemiologic studies and little else. The common approach to a study of assessment, looking at reliability and validity,

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is experimental research passé

Norman

2010

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Through interactive material in digital repository, immediate feedback and problem solving activities it can catalyse active participation [4,5]. Through computer enabled three-dimensional visualization, it can offset the limitations of verbal descriptions in teaching anatomy [6][7][8][9][10]. For the current tech-savvy generation, it can offer a platform to study through a media they enjoy.…”

Section: The Effectiveness Of Early Clinical Exposure and E-learning mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of Early Clinical Exposure and E-Learning in Teaching Anatomy

Chimmalgi¹,

Jose²,

Kumari³

2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The primary objective of this study was to determine if Early Clinical Exposure (ECE) and E-learning can be effective alternative methods of teaching anatomy for the first-year medical students. Secondary objectives were to determine (a) if there was gender bias with these methods and (b) if these methods influenced high, average or low achievers selectively. Materials and Methods:Study was conducted in the department of anatomy with 150 first-year medical students participating in it. Students were randomly divided into three groups of 50 each. Six selected topics were taught to the three groups using ECE, e-learning and traditional lecture alternatively. After each session, a test was conducted using 20 objective questions to assess the learning outcome. Average score of the groups were analysed using Fisher one-way ANOVA or Welch test. Multiple comparisons were done using post-hoc tests when the difference between the average scores was found to be significant. Gender difference in the scores for each method was noted. Learning outcome of high, average and low achievers with ECE and e-learning were compared.Results: Average total scores after ECE were comparable to lecture and superior to e-learning in five of the six sessions. E-learning, however, was not as effective as ECE in improving the test scores. Except for one group, where the boys outperformed the girls after e-learning, girls outperformed the boys in all the groups with all the three methods of instruction. ECE or e-learning did not influence high, average or low achievers selectively. Conclusion:Based on the learning outcome, ECE can be an effective method to teach Anatomy in the described format. E-learning did not improve the test scores in the self-study format used in this study, but, 3D visualization can benefit the students when used as an adjunct to the traditional methods.

show abstract

“…Some studies report benefits of using computer-based programs over traditional material (Garg, Norman, & Sperotable, 2001;Luursema, Verwey, Kommers, & Annema, 2008;Luursema, Verwey, Kommers, Geelkerken, & Vos, 2006;Nicholson, Chalk, Funnell, & Daniel, 2006). Other studies report computer-based programs to be either as efficient as traditional teaching material (Codd & Chaudhury, 2011;Hariri, Rawn, Srivastava, Youngblood, & Ladd, 2004;Garg, Norman, Eva, Spero, & Sharan, 2002;Keedy, et aI., 2011), or inferior to traditional approaches (Garg, Norman, Spero, & Maheshwari, 1999;Levinson, Weaver, Garside, McGinn, & Norman, 2007). However, the relatively poor performance by computerbased groups in these studies can be explained by several points.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Some studies on visualization suggest that visualizations may only be beneficial for high spatial learners (Cohen & Hegarty, 2007;Garg et aI., 1999;Keehner et aI., 2008;Hoffler, 2010;Huk, 2006;Levinson et al,2007;Nguyen, Nelson, & Wilson, 2012). It is important to note that most of the studies that report no benefit for low spatial groups were focused on the initial stage of learning after a brief exposure to the learning material.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from graphically integrated 2D and 3D representations improves retention of neuroanatomy.

Naaz

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visualizations in the form of computer-based learning environments are highly encouraged in science education, especially for teaching spatial material. Some spatial material, such as sectional neuroanatomy, is very challenging to learn. It involves learning the two dimensional (2D) representations that are sampled from the three dimensional (3D) object. In this study, a computer-based learning environment was used to explore the hypothesis that learning sectional neuroanatomy from a graphically integrated 2D and 3D representation will lead to better learning outcomes than learning from a sequential presentation. The integrated representation explicitly demonstrates the 2D-3D transformation and should lead to effective learning. This study was conducted using a computer graphical model of the human brain.There were two learning groups: Whole then Sections, and Integrated 2D3D. Both groups learned whole anatomy (3D neuroanatomy) before learning sectional anatomy (2D neuroanatomy). The Whole then Sections group then learned sectional anatomy using 2D v representations only. The Integrated 2D3D group learned sectional anatomy from a graphically integrated 3D and 2D model. A set of tests for generalization of knowledge to interpreting biomedical images was conducted immediately after learning was completed.The order of presentation of the tests of generalization of knowledge was counterbalanced across participants to explore a secondary hypothesis of the study: preparation for future learning. If the computer-based instruction programs used in this study are effective tools for teaching anatomy, the participants should continue learning neuroanatomy with exposure to new representations. A test of long-term retention of sectional anatomy was conducted 4-8 weeks after learning was completed.The Integrated 2D3D group was better than the Whole then Sections group in retaining knowledge of difficult instances of sectional anatomy after the retention interval. The benefit of learning from an integrated 2D3D representation suggests that there are some spatial transformations which are better retained if they are learned through an explicit demonstration. Participants also showed evidence of continued learning on the tests of generalization with the help of cues and practice, even without feedback. This finding suggests that the computer-based learning programs used in this study were good tools for instruction of neuroanatomy.VI

show abstract

Virtual reality and brain anatomy: a randomised trial of e-learning instructional designs

Cited by 176 publications

References 25 publications

Is experimental research passé

Is experimental research passé

The Effectiveness of Early Clinical Exposure and E-Learning in Teaching Anatomy

Learning from graphically integrated 2D and 3D representations improves retention of neuroanatomy.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About