170 - (Virtual) Reality Check: Assessing Knowledge Transfer Between Virtual and Physical Learning and Testing Modalities

Poster Board Number: 170
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Malak Aiad - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Linda Wu - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Sorin Darie, RMT - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Nyssa Rousta - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Alex Cen - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Ryan Phan - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Jessica Gu - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Josh Mitchell, BEng - Developer, Education Program in Anatomy, McMaster University; Bruce Wainman, PhD - Director, Education Program in Anatomy, McMaster University; Danielle Brewer-Deluce, PhD - Assistant Professor, Education Program in Anatomy, McMaster University

Abstract Body : Introduction and Objective:

Virtual reality (VR) has generated considerable interest within anatomy education. Despite this, current literature has yet to thoroughly investigate whether anatomical knowledge acquired in VR transfers to physical (PH) testing environments, such as bellringer examinations, written tests, and clinical evaluations. The principle of transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) suggests that a student’s performance on a test is enhanced when the testing environment matches the learning environment. Given that VR environments can differ greatly from PH settings, the effects of TAP with respect to learning anatomy in VR warrants investigation. This study aims to examine the transferability of nominal anatomical knowledge learned in either VR or PH environments to learner performance in both testing environments. These insights will help establish the degree to which VR is effective as an educational tool in anatomy education.



Materials and Methods:

A cohort of 176 students without prior formal anatomical knowledge will be recruited. Participants will be randomized to a VR or a PH arm. Both arms of the study include a time-limited pre-test, a learning phase, and two time-limited post-tests. In the learning phase, participants will learn 15 bony landmarks using either a VR or an identical 3D-printed PH vertebra. Following this, participants will complete both a VR and PH post-test in a randomized order to measure their transfer of knowledge between the testing modalities.



Results:

Preliminary analysis of 20 participants was carried out by repeated measures ANCOVA to assess intra-participant performance in the pre- and post-test evaluations. The results revealed no significant effect of testing or learning modality on post-test performance (p > 0.05) while accounting for testing order, mental rotation test scores, and the size of the model learned from.



Conclusion:

Similarity between post-test scores indicates that TAP does not significantly affect testing performance in either modality and that knowledge transfers between VR and PH environments.



Significance and Implications:

These findings support VR as an acceptable learning and testing modality alongside conventional physical counterparts. VR further offers an immersive and accessible educational tool for anatomy educators seeking to enhance learning outside the physical constraints of classrooms and mitigate the limitations of using wet specimens. Moreover, evidence that knowledge transfers between VR and PH environments sparks optimism for broader applications beyond nominal anatomy, such as surgical skills and simulation-based training in VR.