Literature DB >> 33945133

Instructional Design of Virtual Learning Resources for Anatomy Education.

Nicolette S Birbara1, Nalini Pather2.   

Abstract

Virtual learning resources (VLRs) developed using immersive technologies like virtual reality are becoming popular in medical education, particularly in anatomy. However, if VLRs are going to be more widely adopted, it is important that they are designed appropriately. The overarching aim of this study was to propose guidelines for the instructional design of VLRs for anatomy education. More specifically, the study grounded these guidelines within cognitive learning theories through an investigation of the cognitive load imposed by VLRs. This included a comparison of stereoscopic and desktop VLR deliveries and an evaluation of the impact of prior knowledge and university experience. Participants were voluntarily recruited to experience stereoscopic and desktop deliveries of a skull anatomy VLR (UNSW Sydney Ethics #HC16592). A MyndBand® electroencephalography (EEG) headset was used to collect brainwave data and theta power was used as an objective cognitive load measure. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration task load index (NASA-TLX) was used to collect perceptions as a subjective measure. Both objective and subjective cognitive load measures were higher overall for the stereoscopic delivery and for participants with prior knowledge, and significantly higher for junior students (P = 0.038). Based on this study's results, those of several of our previous studies and the literature, various factors are important to consider in VLR design. These include delivery modality, their application to collaborative learning, physical fidelity, prior knowledge and prior university experience. Overall, the guidelines proposed based on these factors suggest that VLR design should be learner-centred and aim to reduce extraneous cognitive load.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anatomy education; Cognitive load; Electroencephalography; Instructional design; Virtual reality

Year:  2021        PMID: 33945133     DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-61125-5_5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol        ISSN: 0065-2598            Impact factor:   2.622


  53 in total

1.  High-fidelity simulator technology may not be superior to traditional low-fidelity equipment for neonatal resuscitation training.

Authors:  E Finan; Z Bismilla; H E Whyte; V Leblanc; P J McNamara
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 2.521

2.  Evaluation of neuroanatomical training using a 3D visual reality model.

Authors:  Danielle N Brewer; Timothy D Wilson; Roy Eagleson; Sandrine de Ribaupierre
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2012

3.  Decontamination training: with and without virtual reality simulation.

Authors:  Sharon Lee Farra; Sherrill Smith; Gordon Lee Gillespie; Stephanie Nicely; Deborah L Ulrich; Eric Hodgson; DeAnne French
Journal:  Adv Emerg Nurs J       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

4.  Using virtual reality to complement and enhance anatomy education.

Authors:  Caroline Erolin; Luke Reid; Seaneen McDougall
Journal:  J Vis Commun Med       Date:  2019-05-06

5.  Virtual reality anatomy: is it comparable with traditional methods in the teaching of human forearm musculoskeletal anatomy?

Authors:  Anthony M Codd; Bipasha Choudhury
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2011-04-07       Impact factor: 5.958

6.  Perception of realism during mock resuscitations by pediatric housestaff: the impact of simulated physical features.

Authors:  Aaron J Donoghue; Dennis R Durbin; Frances M Nadel; Glenn R Stryjewski; Suzanne I Kost; Vinay M Nadkarni
Journal:  Simul Healthc       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.929

7.  Evaluation of the effectiveness of 3D vascular stereoscopic models in anatomy instruction for first year medical students.

Authors:  Dongmei Cui; Timothy D Wilson; Robin W Rockhold; Michael N Lehman; James C Lynch
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 5.958

8.  EEG-based cognitive load of processing events in 3D virtual worlds is lower than processing events in 2D displays.

Authors:  Alex Dan; Miriam Reiner
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 2.997

9.  The Student Experience With Varying Immersion Levels of Virtual Reality Simulation.

Authors:  Sharon L Farra; Sherrill J Smith; Deborah L Ulrich
Journal:  Nurs Educ Perspect       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr

10.  The Benefits of an Augmented Reality Magic Mirror System for Integrated Radiology Teaching in Gross Anatomy.

Authors:  Felix Bork; Leonard Stratmann; Stefan Enssle; Ulrich Eck; Nassir Navab; Jens Waschke; Daniela Kugelmann
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 5.958

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.