Jason F Martin, Andrea Linton, Gwendolyn Rose Svenson, Andrew C Garrett, Damon W Mango, Paulina M Svec, Christianne Magee
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Landmark Positioning on a Map: An Alternative Measure of Spatial Ability for Identifying Students Who May Benefit From Learning Gross Anatomy with Virtual Reality.
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.
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.