155 - Effective Timing for Integrating Virtual Reality in a Cadaver-based Human Anatomy Curriculum

Poster Board Number: 155
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Greg Heiberger - South Dakota State University; Jordan Neises - South Dakota State University; Libby Gregg - South Dakota State University

Abstract Body : INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVE: In an era of technology-driven pedagogy, virtual reality (VR) has become a leading method for immersive visuospatial learning. As cadaver-based human anatomy curricula have historically exemplified hands-on visuospatial learning, modern studies have begun to examine VR integration in anatomy education. Still, important questions such as when VR has the greatest impact on student learning in an anatomy curriculum and to what degree VR should be implemented are yet to be answered with total certainty. The objective of this study is to investigate the effective timing for integrating VR in a cadaver-based human anatomy curriculum based on student learning and satisfaction.

MATERIALS & METHODS: Forty-nine undergraduate anatomy students (25 peer teachers, 17 undergraduate teaching assistants, and 7 dissectors) were separated into two groups via stratified randomization. Each group was guided through two comparable advanced anatomy learning experiences – one in VR and the other with human cadaver prosections. One group experienced learning in VR before cadaver prosections (VR-CAD), and the other group experienced learning from cadaver prosections before VR (CAD-VR). Student learning was assessed after each learning experience, and student perceptions about the learning modalities were surveyed before and after the study.

RESULTS: Thirty-five students (71.4%) preferred the CAD-VR order of learning experiences, and 12 (24.5%) preferred the VR-CAD order. On their initial learning assessment, CAD-VR students scored 80.0% and VR-CAD students scored 74.8%; however, CAD-VR students scored 82.5% on their learning assessment after both experiences while VR-CAD students scored 93.2%. Students preferred VR for identifying small structures (zoom ability) (53.1%) and structures that have been removed (showing/hiding layers) (46.9%), whereas cadavers were preferred for group learning (79.6%) and interacting with the anatomy (65.3%). Analyses of student familiarity with VR, previous anatomy experience, and other perceptions will also be presented.

CONCLUSION: Despite the students’ preference to learn from cadaver prosections before VR, this study shows that VR had a 15.9% greater impact on student learning when implemented before a cadaver learning experience. As VR and cadavers each offer advantages to learning, an integrated model is suggested for greatest impact.

SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATION: The visuospatial organization of human anatomy offers an ideal platform for using VR to facilitate immersive student learning. This study may inform educators who are considering VR integration in their cadaver-based human anatomy curricula but are unsure when and to what degree to implement it for greatest impact on student learning and satisfaction.