Anatomical theater or full digitization? Students’ assessment and preferences in the field of anatomy teaching
Abstract
Background: For many years, teaching of anatomy has been based on traditional forms of teaching, but innovative solutions are currently being implemented on a large scale around the world. The COVID-19 pandemic and distance learning have influenced the development of new technologies in teaching. Materials and methods: The study was conducted among medical students who studied anatomy in the year preceding the analysis when the restrictions related to the pandemic had been lifted. The questionnaire contained 10 questions with YES/NO answers and a modified 10-point Likert scale. The data was subjected to statistical analysis performed in R studio using the R programming language. 650 respondents were included in the analysis. Results: Students assessed the modernization of anatomy departments to be unsatisfactory - on a 10-point scale, the most common answer was 2 — the average was 2.69. At the same time, they assessed the accessibility of knowledge as acceptable — median 6, with an average of 5.58. 75.38% of respondents did not use virtual reality technology, 75.69% did not use a 3D printing. 92.5% did not work with a virtual anatomical table. The vast majority of students claim that new technologies will be useful in their future clinical practice. Conclusions: New technologies are still rarely used in the teaching of anatomy, despite an increasing availability of such solutions and the conviction of students about the validity of implementing innovations in their future clinical practice. It seems reasonable to enable cooperation between the traditional forms of learning and the modern ones.
Keywords: anatomy learningVRMR3D printingnew technlologies in anatomyvirtual dissection anatomy table
References
- AbouHashem Y, Dayal M, Savanah S, et al. The application of 3D printing in anatomy education. Med Educ Online. 2015; 20: 29847.
- Babacan S, Dogru Yuvarlakbas S. Digitalization in education during the COVID-19 pandemic: emergency distance anatomy education. Surg Radiol Anat. 2022; 44(1): 55–60.
- Bartoletti-Stella A, Gatta V, Mariani GA, et al. Three-dimensional virtual anatomy as a new approach for medical student's learning. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(24).
- Bergman EM, van der Vleuten CPM, Scherpbier AJ. Why don't they know enough about anatomy? A narrative review. Med Teach. 2011; 33(5): 403–409.
- Abdulrahman KB, Jumaa M, Hanafy S, et al. Students’ perceptions and attitudes after exposure to three different instructional strategies in applied anatomy. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021; 12: 607–612.
- Chen S, Zhu J, Cheng C, et al. Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy education programmes? A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model. BMC Med Educ. 2020; 20(1): 395.
- Cotteleer M, Holdowsky J, Mahto M. The 3D opportunity primer: the basics of additive manufacturing. Deloitte University Press, Westlake 2013.
- Davis CR, Bates AS, Ellis H, et al. Human anatomy: let the students tell us how to teach. Anat Sci Educ. 2014; 7(4): 262–272.
- Erolin C, Reid L, McDougall S. Using virtual reality to complement and enhance anatomy education. J Vis Commun Med. 2019; 42(3): 93–101.
- Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: a critical review. Ann Anat. 2016; 208: 151–157.
- Evans DJR, Bay BH, Wilson TD, et al. Going virtual to support anatomy education: a STOPGAP in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. Anat Sci Educ. 2020; 13(3): 279–283.
- Ghosh SK. Human cadaveric dissection: a historical account from ancient Greece to the modern era. Anat Cell Biol. 2015; 48(3): 153–169.
- Gloy K, Weyhe P, Nerenz E, et al. Immersive anatomy atlas: learning factual medical knowledge in a virtual reality environment. Anat Sci Educ. 2022; 15(2): 360–368.
- Hackett M, Proctor M. Three-Dimensional display technologies for anatomical education: a literature review. J Sci Educ Technol. 2016; 25(4): 641–654.
- Hull CW. U.S. Patent No. 4,575,330. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, 1986.
- Kausar T, Chandio S, Quddus I, et al. Effectiveness of teaching with visualisation table in comparison to traditional lecture in anatomy department, jinnah sindh medical university. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2020; 30(10): 1074–1077.
- Keenan ID, Ben Awadh A. Integrating 3D visualisation technologies in undergraduate anatomy education. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019; 1120: 39–53.
- Khasawneh RR. Anatomy education of medical students during the COVID 19 pandemic. Int J Morphol. 2021; 39(5): 1264–1269.
- Kolecki R, Pręgowska A, Dąbrowa J, et al. Assessment of the utility of Mixed Reality in medical education. Transl Res Anat. 2022; 28: 100214.
- Kolla S, Elgawly M, Gaughan JP, et al. Medical student perception of a virtual reality training module for anatomy education. Med Sci Educ. 2020; 30(3): 1201–1210.
- Leukers B, Gülkan H, Irsen SH, et al. Hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering made by 3D printing. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2005; 16(12): 1121–1124.
- Li Z, Li Z, Peng C, et al. A bibliometric analysis of virtual reality in anatomy teaching between 1999 and 2022. Front Educ. 2022; 7.
- Maani A, Forma A, Brachet A, et al. The future of morphological science education: learning and teaching anatomy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(7).
- Matthews D. Virtual-reality applications give science a new dimension. Nature. 2018; 557(7703): 127–128.
- McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ. 2006; 40(3): 243–253.
- Miltykh I, Kafarov E, Covantsev S, et al. A new dimension in medical education: virtual reality in anatomy during COVID‐19 pandemic. Clin Anat. 2023; 36(7): 1007–1015.
- Mironov V, Boland T, Trusk T, et al. Organ printing: computer-aided jet-based 3D tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 2003; 21(4): 157–161.
- Moro C, Štromberga Z, Raikos A, et al. The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2017; 10(6): 549–559.
- Shin M, Prasad A, Sabo G, et al. Anatomy education in US Medical Schools: before, during, and beyond COVID-19. BMC Med Educ. 2022; 22(1): 103.
- Silén C, Wirell S, Kvist J, et al. Advanced 3D visualization in student-centred medical education. Med Teach. 2008; 30(5): e115–e124.
- Singal A, Bansal A, Chaudhary P. Cadaverless anatomy: darkness in the times of pandemic Covid-19. Morphologie. 2020; 104(346): 147–150.
- Smith CF, Freeman S, Heylings D, et al. Anatomy education for medical students in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in 2019: A 20‐year follow‐up. Anat Sci Educ. 2021; 15(6): 993–1006.
- Teixeira J, Palmisano S. Effects of dynamic field-of-view restriction on cybersickness and presence in HMD-based virtual reality. Virtual Reality. 2020; 25(2): 433–445.
- Trautman J, McAndrew D, Craig S. Anatomy teaching stuck in time? A 10-year follow-up of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools. Australian Journal of Education. 2019; 63(3): 340–350.
- Trelease R. From chalkboard, slides, and paper to e‐learning: How computing technologies have transformed anatomical sciences education. Anat Sci Educ. 2016; 9(6): 583–602.
- Weyhe D, Uslar V, Weyhe F, et al. Immersive anatomy atlas-empirical study investigating the usability of a virtual reality environment as a learning tool for anatomy. Front Surg. 2018; 5: 73.
- Wilson TD. Role of image and cognitive load in anatomical multimedia. In: Chan LK, Pawlina W. ed. Practical Guide. 1st ed. Springer International Publishing, New York 2015: 237–246.
- Wright SJ. Student perceptions of an upper-level, undergraduate human anatomy laboratory course without cadavers. Anat Sci Educ. 2012; 5(3): 146–157.
- Zargaran A, Turki MA, Bhaskar J, et al. The role of technology in anatomy teaching: striking the right balance. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020; 11: 259–266.
- Zureick AH, Burk-Rafel J, Purkiss JA, et al. The interrupted learner: how distractions during live and video lectures influence learning outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2018; 11(4): 366–376.
