139 - Spilling the Tea: How Students Really Feel About Learning Anatomy Using Virtual Reality

Poster Board Number: 139
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; Julia Issa - Undergraduate Student, Honours Biology and Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour Program, McMaster University; Alyssandra Mammoliti - Undergraduate Student, 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: Virtual reality (VR) provides a unique opportunity to explore highly immersive and interactive anatomy outside of the laboratory. To fully appreciate the perspectives of learners, qualitative analysis is essential. The purpose of this study is to explore the subjective learning experiences associated with learning pelvic anatomy in VR.




Methods: Forty undergraduate students were recruited for this study. Participants were given 10 minutes to navigate through an 11-scene module featuring a clinical scenario with multiple pelvis models, each labeled with different anatomical structures. Handheld controllers were provided to allow learners to navigate between scenes and to rotate and magnify the models. Feedback was collected via an electronic questionnaire asking participants to identify features of the module which they felt facilitated and limited their learning. Participants were also asked to provide suggestions to improve the learning experience and were given additional space for open feedback. Preliminary reflexive thematic analysis of their responses was conducted.




Results: Over half of the participants identified time constraint as a common barrier to their learning. Suboptimal label placement on anatomical structures and rotation being restricted to one axis instead of multiple axes were noted as limitations of the learning module. Additionally, some participants described the VR headsets as uncomfortable due to their weight and reported experiencing eyestrain and dizziness. Suggestions to improve the learning experience included reducing the textual content and integrating in-module quizzes to improve engagement. Despite these criticisms, participants widely appreciated the immersive VR environment, noting the realism of the pelvic models and the enhancement of spatial awareness.




Significance: While time constraint was a frequently reported limitation, the 10-minute limit was necessary to ensure variability in the outcomes without the floor or ceiling effects that would come with a longer or shorter learning period. Rotating the models in multiple axes was a common preference, however, some research indicates that manipulating models to orientations beyond key views significantly impedes the learning of individuals with low visuospatial ability. Overall, it is imperative that the learning experience not be overly burdensome.




Conclusion: Even technologies which are meticulously designed and rigorously tested often miss out on small but important considerations that only come to light with the insight of the end-users. Involving students as partners in the design of VR learning tools with the use of qualitative feedback can help us to enhance both the development and the delivery of learning tools in the classroom.