Landmark Positioning on a Map: An Alternative Measure of Spatial Ability for Identifying Students Who May Benefit From Learning Gross Anatomy with Virtual Reality.

IF 1.1 3区 农林科学 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jason F Martin, Andrea Linton, Gwendolyn Rose Svenson, Andrew C Garrett, Damon W Mango, Paulina M Svec, Christianne Magee
{"title":"Landmark Positioning on a Map: An Alternative Measure of Spatial Ability for Identifying Students Who May Benefit From Learning Gross Anatomy with Virtual Reality.","authors":"Jason F Martin, Andrea Linton, Gwendolyn Rose Svenson, Andrew C Garrett, Damon W Mango, Paulina M Svec, Christianne Magee","doi":"10.3138/jvme-2024-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research has shown an inconsistent relationship between spatial abilities and learning outcomes from virtual anatomical tools. Instructors must understand this relationship to select appropriate resources for diverse learners. To identify appropriate tests for measuring spatial ability and evaluate the effectiveness of virtual anatomical resources, this study compared 96 students' visuospatial ability (measured using the Mental Rotation Task [MRT] and Landmark Position on a Map [LPM] tests) with learning outcomes from experimental anatomy sessions and undergraduate anatomical course examinations. During experimental sessions, students took a test after a brief instructional session using one virtual resource: a monoscopic resource (e.g., digital photographs or a rotatable three-dimensional [r3D] specimen) or a stereoscopic virtual reality (VR) specimen. A negative linear relationship was found between MRT scores and students in Session B using VR with controllers (<i>r</i> = -.56 to -.29), and LPM scores and students using VR (<i>r</i> = -.71 to .39) and r3D (<i>r</i> = -.41 to .43). There was a positive linear relationship between MRT scores and all other resources (<i>r</i> = .01 to .91), and course examination scores (<i>r</i> = .25 to .42, <i>p</i> = .05). Although the results were inconsistent, correlations were found between spatial ability and outcomes using both the MRT and LPM. The LPM might be better suited for determining which learners would benefit from VR. The results suggest that monoscopic resources best support high spatial abilities, and stereoscopic resources best support low spatial abilities. These findings support accounting for diverse learner visuospatial abilities when selecting resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":17575,"journal":{"name":"Journal of veterinary medical education","volume":" ","pages":"e20240011"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of veterinary medical education","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme-2024-0011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research has shown an inconsistent relationship between spatial abilities and learning outcomes from virtual anatomical tools. Instructors must understand this relationship to select appropriate resources for diverse learners. To identify appropriate tests for measuring spatial ability and evaluate the effectiveness of virtual anatomical resources, this study compared 96 students' visuospatial ability (measured using the Mental Rotation Task [MRT] and Landmark Position on a Map [LPM] tests) with learning outcomes from experimental anatomy sessions and undergraduate anatomical course examinations. During experimental sessions, students took a test after a brief instructional session using one virtual resource: a monoscopic resource (e.g., digital photographs or a rotatable three-dimensional [r3D] specimen) or a stereoscopic virtual reality (VR) specimen. A negative linear relationship was found between MRT scores and students in Session B using VR with controllers (r = -.56 to -.29), and LPM scores and students using VR (r = -.71 to .39) and r3D (r = -.41 to .43). There was a positive linear relationship between MRT scores and all other resources (r = .01 to .91), and course examination scores (r = .25 to .42, p = .05). Although the results were inconsistent, correlations were found between spatial ability and outcomes using both the MRT and LPM. The LPM might be better suited for determining which learners would benefit from VR. The results suggest that monoscopic resources best support high spatial abilities, and stereoscopic resources best support low spatial abilities. These findings support accounting for diverse learner visuospatial abilities when selecting resources.

地图上的地标定位:一种空间能力的替代测量方法,用于识别可能从利用虚拟现实技术学习大体解剖学中受益的学生。
研究表明,空间能力与虚拟解剖工具的学习效果之间的关系并不一致。教师必须了解这种关系,才能为不同的学习者选择合适的资源。为了确定测量空间能力的适当测试并评估虚拟解剖资源的有效性,本研究比较了 96 名学生的视觉空间能力(使用心理旋转任务 [MRT] 和地图上地标位置 [LPM] 测试测量)与解剖学实验课程和本科解剖学课程考试的学习成果。在实验课程中,学生在使用一种虚拟资源(单镜像资源(如数码照片或可旋转的三维标本)或立体虚拟现实(VR)标本)进行简短教学后进行测试。在使用带控制器的 VR 的 B 节中,MRT 分数与学生之间呈负线性关系(r = -.56 至 -.29),LPM 分数与使用 VR 的学生之间呈负线性关系(r = -.71 至 0.39),与使用 r3D 的学生之间呈负线性关系(r = -.41 至 0.43)。MRT 分数与所有其他资源(r = 0.01 至 0.91)和课程考试成绩(r = 0.25 至 0.42,p = 0.05)之间呈正线性关系。虽然结果不一致,但使用 MRT 和 LPM 发现空间能力与结果之间存在相关性。LPM 可能更适合确定哪些学习者将从 VR 中受益。结果表明,单视资源最能支持高空间能力,而立体资源最能支持低空间能力。这些结果支持在选择资源时考虑学习者不同的视觉空间能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
30.00%
发文量
113
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Veterinary Medical Education (JVME) is the peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC). As an internationally distributed journal, JVME provides a forum for the exchange of ideas, research, and discoveries about veterinary medical education. This exchange benefits veterinary faculty, students, and the veterinary profession as a whole by preparing veterinarians to better perform their professional activities and to meet the needs of society. The journal’s areas of focus include best practices and educational methods in veterinary education; recruitment, training, and mentoring of students at all levels of education, including undergraduate, graduate, veterinary technology, and continuing education; clinical instruction and assessment; institutional policy; and other challenges and issues faced by veterinary educators domestically and internationally. Veterinary faculty of all countries are encouraged to participate as contributors, reviewers, and institutional representatives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信