Advertisement

Veterinary Students and Faculty Partner in Developing a Virtual Three-Dimensional (3D) Interactive Touch Screen Canine Anatomy Table

  • William B. LittleEmail author
  • Elpida Artemiou
  • Carmen Fuentealba
  • Anne Conan
  • Cathryn Sparks
Original Research
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

As educational technology advances, it is imperative that universities responsibly and appropriately adapt new approaches to enhance teaching and learning. Over a 6-month period, veterinary students at Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine (RUSVM) spearheaded the improvement of a proprietary prototype virtual interactive three-dimensional (3D), touch screen, canine anatomy table (APEX). Eight veterinary students with a grade of 80% or higher in their anatomy courses were hired as research assistants to identify and characterize 306 virtual anatomical structures. Descriptive statistics were used to assess students’ (1) accuracy in reviewing assigned anatomical structures, and (2) perceptions surrounding the use of APEX as an educational anatomical tool. The overall accuracy rating was 3.73 on a 4-point scale, and students reported their experience as enjoyable (median 4 on a 5-point Likert scale) and beneficial to their knowledge of veterinary anatomy (median 4). In addition, 29 RUSVM faculty were surveyed on both the prototype APEX table as well as the student-improved version. Faculty agreement with utilization of APEX in RUSVM curriculum increased from Likert mean = 2.0 to a mean of 3.9 (p = < 0.001) between the two versions. Study results support the use of veterinary students to critically assess the development of anatomical educational tools for veterinary anatomy. Furthermore, students and faculty supported acceptance of technology in teaching and learning veterinary anatomy, and reported enjoyment and benefit of its use.

Keywords

Veterinary anatomy education Computer assisted learning Gross anatomy Virtual anatomy Educational methods 

Notes

Acknowledgements

APEX table development was facilitated by Gear Learning development studio.

Funding Information

Funding for this project was provided by an intramural grant from Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine Center-4, Research and Innovation in Veterinary and Medical Education.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All participants were asked to read and sign an informed consent form prior to the start of the study. Standards, guidelines, and approval for the use of student cohorts relative to this research were administered by the RUSVM institutional review board (IRB).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This manuscript does not contain images, tables or figures which are under copyright. All authors have read and accept responsibility for this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Cottam WW. Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors. Clin Anat. 1999;12(1):55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aziz MA, Mckenzie JC, Wilson JS, Cowie RJ, Ayeni SA, Dunn BK. The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. Anat Rec. 2002;269(1):20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cake MA. Deep dissection: motivating students beyond rote learning in veterinary anatomy. J Vet Med Educ. 2006;33(2):266–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nicholson DT, Chalk C, Funnell WRJ, Daniel SJ. Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Med Educ. 2006;40(11):1081–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adams CM, Wilson TD. Virtual cerebral ventricular system: an MR-based three-dimensional computer model. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(6):340–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abdelhamid TM. The multidimensional learning model: A novel cognitive psychologybased model for computer assisted instruction in order to improve learning in medical students. Medical Education Online. 1999;4(1):4302.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trelease RB. Anatomical informatics: millennial perspectives on a newer frontier. Anat Rec. 2002;269(5):224–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(2):83–93.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ. 2004;38(4):418–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hart LA, Wood MW, Weng H-Y. Mainstreaming alternatives in veterinary medical education: resource development and curricular reform. J Vet Med Educ. 2005;32(4):473–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arráez-Aybar LA, Casado-Morales MI, Castaño-Collado G. Anxiety and dissection of the human cadaver: an unsolvable relationship? Anat Rec B New Anat. 2004;279(1):16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones DG. Reassessing the importance of dissection: a critique and elaboration. Clin Anat. 1997;10(2):123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Issenberg S, Petrusa ER, McGaghie WC, Felner JM, Waugh RA, Nash IS, et al. Effectiveness of a computer-based system to teach bedside cardiology. Acad Med. 1999;74(10):S93–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patronek GJ, Rauch A. Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007;230(1):37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salazar I. Coming changes in veterinary anatomy: what is or should be expected? J Vet Med Educ. 2002;29(3):126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(6):253–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al-Mohrej OA, Al-Ayedh NK, Masuadi EM, Al-Kenani NS. Learning methods and strategies of anatomy among medical students in two different Institutions in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Medical Teacher. 2017;39(sup1):S15–S21.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nieder GL, Scott JN, Anderson MD. Using QuickTime virtual reality objects in computer-assisted instruction of gross anatomy: Yorick—the VR skull. Clin Anat. 2000;13(4):287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tam M, Hart A, Williams S, Holland R, Heylings D, Leinster S. Evaluation of a computer program (‘disect’) to consolidate anatomy knowledge: a randomised-controlled trial. Med Teach. 2010;32(3):e138–e42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tam M, Hart A, Williams S, Heylings D. Leinster S. is learning anatomy facilitated by computer-aided learning? A review of the literature. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):e393–e6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yammine K, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(6):525–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No 82. Med Teach. 2013;35(10):e1511–e30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brophy J. Motivating students to learn. Ch 1. Introduction to Student Motivation. Abingdon: Routledge; 2013. p. 1–26.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reidenberg JS, Laitman JT. The new face of gross anatomy. Anat Rec. 2002;269(2):81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abutarbush SM, Naylor JM, Parchoma G, D'Eon M, Petrie L, Carruthers T. Evaluation of traditional instruction versus a self-learning computer module in teaching veterinary students how to pass a nasogastric tube in the horse. J Vet Med Educ. 2006;33(3):447–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berg D, Raugi G, Gladstone H, Berkley J, Weghorst S, Ganter M, et al. Virtual reality simulators for dermatologic surgery: measuring their validity as a teaching tool. Dermatol Surg. 2001;27(4):370–4.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spitzer VM, Scherzinger AL. Virtual anatomy: an anatomist’s playground. Clin Anat. 2006;19(3):192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Balcombe J. Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection. Am Biol Teach. 1997;59(1):22–25.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dyce KM, Sack WO, Wensing CJG. Textbook of veterinary anatomy. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2009.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Evans HE, De Lahunta A. Guide to the dissection of the dog. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Linton A, Schoenfeld-Tacher R, Whalen LR. Developing and implementing an assessment method to evaluate a virtual canine anatomy program. J Vet Med Educ. 2005;32(2):249–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Medhub. E*Value http://www.medhub.com/evalue/evalue-product/. Accessed 19 July 2017.
  33. 33.
    Inwood MJ, Ahmad J. Development of instructional, interactive, multimedia anatomy dissection software: a student-led initiative. Clin Anat. 2005;18(8):613–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Francis NR, Lewis W. What price dissection? Dissection literally dissected. Med Humanit. 2001;27(1):2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nieder GL, Nagy F. Analysis of medical students' use of web-based resources for a gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. 2002;15(6):409–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jastrow H, Vollrath L. Teaching and learning gross anatomy using modern electronic media based on the visible human project. Clin Anat. 2003;16(1):44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khalil M, Lamar C, Johnson T. Using computer-based interactive imagery strategies for designing instructional anatomy programs. Clin Anat. 2005;18(1):68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Codd AM, Choudhury B. Virtual reality anatomy: is it comparable with traditional methods in the teaching of human forearm musculoskeletal anatomy? Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(3):119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frick CMRTW, Reigeluth CM. Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. Instructional-design theories and models, 1999;2.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Estevez ME, Lindgren KA, Bergethon PR. A novel three-dimensional tool for teaching human neuroanatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(6):309–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Khot Z, Quinlan K, Norman GR, Wainman B. The relative effectiveness of computer-based and traditional resources for education in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(4):211–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Turney B. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89(2):104–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ. 2006;40(3):243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Winkelmann A. Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Med Educ. 2007;41(1):15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical SciencesRoss University School of Veterinary MedicineBasseterreSaint Kitts and Nevis
  2. 2.Long Island University School of Veterinary MedicineBrookvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Anatomy and PhysiologyKansas State University School of Veterinary MedicineManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations