Poster Board Number: 166
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour
Co-authors:
Farah Hasan - Education Program in Anatomy - McMaster University; Aida Esmaelbeigi - Bachelor of Health Sciences (Honours) Program - McMaster University; Julia Issa - Honours Biology and Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour Program - McMaster University; Jennifer McBride - Department of Education, Innovation and Technology - Baylor College of Medicine; Josh Mitchell - Education Program in Anatomy - McMaster University; Ranil Sonnadara - Department of Surgery - McMaster University; David Mazierski - Biomedical Communications - University of Toronto Mississauga; Bruce Wainman - Department of Pathology & Molecular Medicine - McMaster University
Abstract Body : Introduction: Learners are drawn to the highly immersive, realistic and interactive qualities of virtual reality (VR), but does that mean it is truly more engaging than traditional learning tools? We explored how user engagement varies for a pelvic anatomy learning module presented in three different modalities (VR, 3D-printed models (3DPM) or planar computer display (2D)) and two environments (clinical or contextless). We hypothesized that due to its immersive quality, engagement would be highest in VR and lowest in 2D. We also hypothesized that learning engagement in a visually complex clinical environment would be greater than in a contextless blackout space.
Methods: 120 participants viewed the learning module in 1 of the 3 modalities and 1 of 2 learning environments. The User Engagement Scale (UES) measured: focused attention, perceived usability, aesthetic appeal and reward. The Mental Rotations Test (MRT), NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and Simulator Sickness questionnaire (SSQ) were also administered, and the scores were used as covariates during analysis.
Results: A two-way ANCOVA analyzed the effect of modality and environment on UES overall score, using MRT, NASA-TLX and SSQ scores as covariates. The adjusted means (±SE) for UES scores for VR, 3DPM and 2D models were 16.0 (.28), 15.1 (.27) and 14.4 (.27), respectively. Preliminary analysis revealed a significant main effect of modality on UES score [F(2,111) = 8.16, p < 0.001, ηp2 =.128], a non-significant main effect of environment on UES score [F(1,111) =1.30, p= 256, ηp2 = .012] and a non-significant interaction between modality and environment [F(2,111) = .34, p = .71, ηp2 = .006]. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction revealed that the average UES score for VR was significantly higher than for the 2D condition (p< 0.001).
Significance: The nonsignificant difference between engagement in the VR and 3DPM groups was unexpected but may be explained by an increased appeal in “hands-on” learning after prolonged virtual learning through the COVID-19 pandemic. The surprising lack of difference in engagement between learning environments might be a result of participants hyper focusing on the learning task and module navigation to the point that environmental stimuli were not salient enough to impact engagement.
Conclusion: When considering applying these findings to developing anatomical tools, it seems that VR and 3DPMs should be implemented rather than 2D modules when possible and that context contributes negligibly to engagement.
