168 - Illusion of Choice: The Effect of Self-selection of Model Size on Anatomy Learning

Poster Board Number: 168
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Alex Cen - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Sorin Darie, RMT - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Ryan Phan - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Jessica Gu - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Rabbea Sidhu - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Malak Aiad - Faculty of Health Sciences - McMaster University; Linda Wu - 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) and 3D printing creates unlimited and unprecedented possibilities for sizing anatomical models. However, existing literature has yet to investigate if model size affects learning outcomes and it is unclear what decision-making processes are involved when learners select a specific size to learn from. This study explores: (1) whether self-selected model size differs between physical (PH) and VR learning environments, (2) the effect of learning modality on post-test performance, and (3) the relationship between model size and post-test performance.



Materials and Methods:

A total of 176 undergraduate students without prior formal anatomy education will be recruited. Participants are randomized to a VR or PH stream, which includes a timed modality-matched pre-test, learning phase, and post-test conducted half in VR and half in PH. Prior to the learning phase, participants select one of 13 vertebral models of varying size from which to learn 15 bony landmarks. Model sizes (measured as longest diameter) range from 3cm to 39cm, increasing by 3cm increments. The pre-test (5 questions) and post-test (10 questions) each include distinct bellringer-style identification questions, which are tested using a 100% size model. A modified Vandenburg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test (MRT) is administered at the end of the study as a covariate.



Results:

Preliminary data from 20 participants was analyzed. Model sizes that learners chose in VR were not different from the sizes chosen in PH environments (p = 0.899, ANCOVA) and post-test scores did not differ between learning modalities (p = 0.544, ANCOVA). There was no correlation between model size and post-test scores (R = 0.029, p = 0.903).



Conclusion:

Similarity in self-selected sizes across both modalities suggests that participants have a similar approach to learning in VR and PH environments. Model sizes did not impact participants’ performance, indicating that size is not a significant variable to manipulate to enhance anatomical learning.



Significance and Implications:

These findings suggest that anatomical models in the classroom can be chosen based on other factors apart from size, such as availability, digital resolution, and cost. Still, manipulating model size may offer benefits in supporting those with physical limitations in the lab. For example, larger models with increased font size may help individuals with visual impairments, while smaller models could be easier to manipulate for those with motor impairments – all without compromising learning outcomes.