From bones to bytes: Do manipulable 3D models have added value in osteology education compared to static images?
Journal
Medical education
ISSN: 1365-2923
Titre abrégé: Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7605655
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
revised:
14
11
2022
received:
09
08
2022
accepted:
25
11
2022
pubmed:
2
12
2022
medline:
14
3
2023
entrez:
1
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Over the past few years, anatomy education has been revolutionized through digital media, resulting in innovative computer-based 3D models to supplement or even replace traditional learning materials. However, the added value of these models in terms of learning performance remains unclear. Multiple mechanisms may contribute to the inconclusive findings. This study focusses on the impact of active manipulation on learning performance and the influence that posttest design features may have on the outcome measurement. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two research conditions: studying on the base of a computer-based manipulable pelvic bone model versus online static images of the same model. Pretests focused on students' baseline anatomy knowledge and spatial ability. Three knowledge posttests were administered: a test based on a physical pelvic bone model, and two computer-based tests based on static images and a manipulable model. Mental effort was measured with the Paas mental effort rating scale. In the static images-based posttest, significantly higher knowledge scores were attained by participants studying in the static images research condition (p = 0.043). No other significant knowledge-related differences could be observed. In the manipulable model-based posttest, spatial ability rather than the research condition seemed to have an influential role on the outcome scores (r = 0.18, p = 0.049). Mental effort scores reflected no difference between both research conditions. The research results are counter-intuitive, especially because no significant differences were found in the physical model-based posttest in students who studied with the manipulable model. Explaining the results builds on differences in anatomical models requiring less or more active manipulation to process spatial information. The pelvic bone manipulable model, and by extension osteology models, might be insufficiently complex to provide added value compared with static images. Moreover, the posttest modality should be chosen with care since spatial ability rather than anatomy knowledge may be measured.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Over the past few years, anatomy education has been revolutionized through digital media, resulting in innovative computer-based 3D models to supplement or even replace traditional learning materials. However, the added value of these models in terms of learning performance remains unclear. Multiple mechanisms may contribute to the inconclusive findings. This study focusses on the impact of active manipulation on learning performance and the influence that posttest design features may have on the outcome measurement.
METHODS
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two research conditions: studying on the base of a computer-based manipulable pelvic bone model versus online static images of the same model. Pretests focused on students' baseline anatomy knowledge and spatial ability. Three knowledge posttests were administered: a test based on a physical pelvic bone model, and two computer-based tests based on static images and a manipulable model. Mental effort was measured with the Paas mental effort rating scale.
RESULTS
In the static images-based posttest, significantly higher knowledge scores were attained by participants studying in the static images research condition (p = 0.043). No other significant knowledge-related differences could be observed. In the manipulable model-based posttest, spatial ability rather than the research condition seemed to have an influential role on the outcome scores (r = 0.18, p = 0.049). Mental effort scores reflected no difference between both research conditions.
CONCLUSION
The research results are counter-intuitive, especially because no significant differences were found in the physical model-based posttest in students who studied with the manipulable model. Explaining the results builds on differences in anatomical models requiring less or more active manipulation to process spatial information. The pelvic bone manipulable model, and by extension osteology models, might be insufficiently complex to provide added value compared with static images. Moreover, the posttest modality should be chosen with care since spatial ability rather than anatomy knowledge may be measured.
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
359-368Informations de copyright
© 2022 Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Brenton H, Hernandez J, Bello F, et al. Using multimedia and Web3D to enhance anatomy teaching. Comput Educ. 2007;49(1):32-53. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.005
Evans DJR, Bay BH, Wilson TD, Smith CF, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Going virtual to support anatomy education: a STOPGAP in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(3):279-283. doi:10.1002/ase.1963
Harmon DJ, Attardi SM, Barremkala M, et al. An analysis of anatomy education before and during Covid-19: May-August 2020. Anat Sci Educ. 2021;14(2):132-147. doi:10.1002/ase.2051
Vandenbossche V, Van de Velde J, Avet S, et al. Digital body preservation: technique and applications. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(4):731-744. doi:10.1002/ase.2199
Erolin C. Interactive 3D digital models for anatomy and medical education. In: Rea PM, ed. Biomedical visualisation, advances in experimental medicine and biology. Vol.1138. Springer Nature Switzerland AG; 2019:1-16. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14227-8_1
Birbara NS, Pather N. Instructional design of virtual learning resources for anatomy education. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2021;1317:75-110. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61125-5_5
Yammine K, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(6):525-538. doi:10.1002/ase.1510
Garg A, Norman G, Spero L, Maheshwari P. Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? Acad Med. 1999;74(10):S87-S89. doi:10.1097/00001888-199910000-00049
Garg A, Norman G, Sperotable L. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet. 2001;357(9253):363-364. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03649-7
Garg A, Norman G, Eva K, Spero L, Sharan S. Is there any real virtue of virtual reality? The minor role of multiple orientations in learning anatomy from computers. Acad Med. 2002;77(10 SUPPL):97-99. doi:10.1097/00001888-200210001-00030
Levinson AJ, Weaver B, Garside S, McGinn H, Norman GR. Virtual reality and brain anatomy: a randomised trial of e-learning instructional designs. Med Educ. 2007;41(5):495-501. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02694.x
Khot Z, Quinlan K, Norman GR, Wainman B. The relative effectiveness of computer-based and traditional resources for education in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(4):211-215. doi:10.1002/ase.1355
Preece D, Williams SB, Lam R, Weller R. “Let's get physical”: advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(4):216-224. doi:10.1002/ase.1345
Hackett M, Proctor M. The effect of autostereoscopic holograms on anatomical knowledge: a randomised trial. Med Educ. 2018;52(11):1147-1155. doi:10.1111/medu.13729
Shepard RN, Metzler J. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science. 1971;171(3972):701-703.
Shepard RN, Cooper LA. Mental images and their transformations. J Hist Behav Sci. 1982;19(3):301-302.
Kosslyn SM, Thompson WL, Wraga M, Alpert NM. Imagining rotation by endogenous versus exogenous forces: distinct neural mechanisms. Neuroreport. 2001;12(11):2519-2525. doi:10.1097/00001756-200108080-00046
Amorim MA, Isableu B, Jarraya M. Embodied spatial transformations: “body analogy” for the mental rotation of objects. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006;135(3):327-347. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.327
Cook DA. The research we still are not doing: an agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Acad Med. 2005;80(6):541-548. doi:10.1097/00001888-200506000-00005
Bogomolova K, Sam AH, Misky AT, et al. Development of a virtual three-dimensional assessment scenario for anatomical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2021;9(3):1-9. doi:10.1002/ase.2055
Choudhury B, Freemont A. Assessment of anatomical knowledge: approaches taken by higher education institutions. Clin Anat. 2017;30(3):290-299. doi:10.1002/ca.22835
Wainman B, Wolak L, Pukas G, Zheng E, Norman GR. The superiority of three-dimensional physical models to two-dimensional computer presentations in anatomy learning. Med Educ. 2018;52(11):1138-1146. doi:10.1111/medu.13683
Guillot A, Champely S, Batier C, Thiriet P, Collet C. Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2007;12(4):491-507. doi:10.1007/s10459-006-9021-7
Lufler RS, Zumwalt AC, Romney CA, Hoagland TM. Effect of visual-spatial ability on medical students' performance in a gross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(1):3-9. doi:10.1002/ase.264
Nguyen N, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD. Computer visualizations: factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(2):98-108. doi:10.1002/ase.1258
Peters M, Laeng B, Latham K, Jackson M, Zaiyouna R, Richardson C. A redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test: different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain Cogn. 1995;28(1):39-58. doi:10.1006/brcg.1995.1032
Vorstenbosch MATM, Klaassen TPFM, Donders ART, Kooloos JGM, Bolhuis SM, Laan RFJM. Learning anatomy enhances spatial ability. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(4):257-262. doi:10.1002/ase.1346
Paas FG, Van Merriënboer JJ, Adam JJ. Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Percept Mot Skills. 1994;79(1):419-430. doi:10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
Thomas KJ, Denham BE, Dinolfo JD. Perceptions among occupational and physical therapy students of a nontraditional methodology for teaching laboratory gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(2):71-77. doi:10.1002/ase.208
Battulga B, Konishi T, Tamura Y, Moriguchi H. The effectiveness of an interactive 3-dimensional computer graphics model for medical education. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(2):1, e2-12. doi:10.2196/ijmr.2172
Yao WC, Regone RM, Huyhn N, Butler EB, Takashima M. Three-dimensional sinus imaging as an adjunct to two-dimensional imaging to accelerate education and improve spatial orientation. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(3):596-601. doi:10.1002/lary.24316
Cook DA. If you teach them, they will learn: why medical education needs comparative effectiveness research. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2012;17(3):305-310. doi:10.1007/s10459-012-9381-0
Nicholson DT, Chalk C, Funnell WRJ, Daniel SJ. Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Med Educ. 2006;40(11):1081-1087. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02611.x
Estevez ME, Lindgren KA, Bergethon PR. A novel three-dimensional tool for teaching human neuroanatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(6):309-317. doi:10.1002/ase.186
Foo JL, Martinez-Escobar M, Juhnke B, et al. Evaluating mental workload of two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualization for anatomical structure localization. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2013;23(1):65-70. doi:10.1089/lap.2012.0150
Müller-Stich BP, Löb N, Wald D, et al. Regular three-dimensional presentations improve in the identification of surgical liver anatomy-a randomized study. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):131. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-131
Wainman B, Pukas G, Wolak L, Mohanraj S, Lamb J, Norman GR. The critical role of stereopsis in virtual and mixed reality learning environments. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(3):401-412. doi:10.1002/ase.1928
Khalil MK, Paas F, Johnson TE, Payer AF. Interactive and dynamic visualizations in teaching and learning of anatomy: a cognitive load perspective. Anat Rec - Part B New Anat. 2005;286(1):8-14. doi:10.1002/ar.b.20077
Huk T. Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. J Comput Assist Learn. 2006;22(6):392-404. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00180.x
Gibson JJ. The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransford's J, eds. Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1977:67-82.