Impact of 360° vs 2D Videos on Engagement in Anatomy Education.

360 video anatomy engagement medical education online learning technology virtual reality

Journal

Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 Apr 2021
Historique:
entrez: 6 5 2021
pubmed: 7 5 2021
medline: 7 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Medical education is constantly evolving, especially as students were forced to study from home during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and new technologies have driven the rapid development of supplemental online educational resources. In this study, we examine if 360° videos can promote increased engagement over standard two-dimensional (2D) videos among medical students learning anatomy. We enrolled 39 fourth-year medical students to watch two four-minute videos of anatomy lab exercises in a 360° three-dimensional format using an immersive headset or in a 2D format on a laptop computer. Every two minutes, students were asked to rate their engagement from 0-100. Following the videos, they reported their degree of agreement with 14 statements related to engagement, practicality, and interest in the technology. While watching the videos, the average engagement reported by the 360° video group was higher at each time point than the engagement reported by the two-dimensional group. Further, the engagement remained high in the 360° group through the six- and eight-minute timepoints. In the post-video survey, the 360° group reported a statistically significantly higher average engagement in seven of eight measures on the assessment. A 360° video was rated as more practical and interesting than a two-dimensional video. No significant difference existed in the perceived ease of learning. Overall, the use of 360° video may improve engagement for short videos used in medical education. However, developing a better understanding of its impact on learning outcomes will be critical for determining the overall value and effectiveness of this tool.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33954071
doi: 10.7759/cureus.14260
pmc: PMC8088777
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e14260

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021, Chan et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

JAMA. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2131-2132
pubmed: 32232420
Med Educ Online. 2019 Dec;24(1):1666538
pubmed: 31526248
J Gen Intern Med. 2003 May;18(5):370-6
pubmed: 12795736
Can Med Educ J. 2020 Mar 16;11(1):e81-e96
pubmed: 32215146
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2):188-192
pubmed: 28599897
Surg Endosc. 2016 Oct;30(10):4174-83
pubmed: 26905573
Acad Med. 2006 Mar;81(3):207-12
pubmed: 16501260
J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2018 Jul;6(3):123-129
pubmed: 30013996
MedEdPORTAL. 2019 May 15;15:10824
pubmed: 31161136
Acad Med. 2002 Oct;77(10 Suppl):S86-93
pubmed: 12377715
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2019 Oct;24(4):811-825
pubmed: 30456474
J Surg Educ. 2018 Jul - Aug;75(4):993-1000
pubmed: 29122571
Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2014 Jul;44(6):137-40
pubmed: 24981662
J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2020 Jul;8(3):140-143
pubmed: 32802908

Auteurs

Vivian Chan (V)

Internal Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA.

Nathaniel D Larson (ND)

Internal Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA.

David A Moody (DA)

Medical Education, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA.

David G Moyer (DG)

Medical Education, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA.

Neeral L Shah (NL)

Gastroenterology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.

Classifications MeSH