Abstract
Visualizations are an important part of anatomical education and appear in all software on the market. Not all visualization methods are the methods utilized by educators can covertly and significantly impact student learning and stratify the class based on learner abilities that are not directly related to anatomical comprehension. Often, the proposed mechanism for good, bad, or ugly visualizations is on aesthetics, rather than the cognitive load imparted on the learner. The appropriate use of multimedia principles that include using pictures, images, and visualizations in general will positively influence student attention and learning. This chapter outlines components of multimedia learning as it pertains to the use of visualizations in lectures and in online scenarios. Illustrations and research demonstrating how cognitive load can be manipulated to a pedagogic advantage are presented. Approaches and suggestions on how educators might modify their current materials and practice using visualizations are proposed that will positively affect learning through cognitive load reduction.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ. 2004;38(4):418–24.
Drake RL. Anatomy education in a changing medical curriculum. Anat Rec. 1998;253(1):28–31.
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.
Collins TJ, Given RL, Hulsebosch CE, Miller BT. Status of gross anatomy in the US and Canada: Dilemma for the 21st century. Clin Anat. 1994;7(5):275–96.
Stull AT, Hegarty M, Mayer RE. Getting a handle on learning anatomy with interactive three-dimensional graphics. J Educ Psychol. 2009;101(4):803–16.
Mathewson JH. Visual-spatial thinking: an aspect of science overlooked by educators. Sci Educ. 1999;83(1):33–54.
Mayer RE. Instruction based on visualization. In: Mayer RE, Alexander PA, editors. Handbook of research on learning and instruction. New York, NY: Routledge; 2011. p. 427–45.
Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
Attardi SM, Rogers KA. Design and implementation of an online systemic human anatomy course with laboratory. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2014: First Published June 11, 2014, DOI: 10.1002/ase.1465.
Trelease RB, Rosset A. Transforming clinical imaging data for virtual reality learning objects. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(2):50–5.
McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ. 2006;40(3):243–53.
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.
Carroll JB. Abilities in the domain of visual perception. In: Carroll JB, editor. Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytic studies. 1st ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1993. p. 304–63.
Nguyen N, Mulla A, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD. Visuospatial anatomy comprehension: the role of spatial visualization and problem solving strategies. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7(4):280–8.
Garg AX, Norman G, Spero L, Taylor I. Learning anatomy: do new computer models improve spatial understanding? Med Teach. 1999;21(5):519–22.
Garg A, Norman GR, Spero L, Maheshwari P. Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? Acad Med. 1999;74(10 Suppl):S87–9.
Levinson AJ, Weaver B, Garside S, McGinn H, Norman GR. Virtual reality and brain anatomy: a randomised trial of e-learning instructional designs. Med Educ. 2007;41(5):495–501.
Brewer DN, Wilson TD, Eagleson R, de Ribaupierre S. Evaluation of neuroanatomical training using a 3D visual reality model. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;173:85–91.
Nguyen N, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD. Computer visualizations: factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(2):98–108.
Vorstenbosch MA, Klaassen TP, Kooloos JG, Bolhuis SM, Laan RF. Do images influence assessment in anatomy? Exploring the effect of images on item difficulty and item discrimination. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(1):29–41.
Ozcinar Z. The topic of instructional design in research journals: a citation analysis for the years 1980-2008. Australas J Educ Technol. 2009;25(4):559–80.
Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem-solving – effects on learning. Cognit Sci. 1988;12(2):257–85.
Mayer RE. The science of learning: determining how multimedia learning works. In: Mayer RE, editor. Multi-media learning. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
Mayer RE, Heiser J, Lonn S. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J Educ Psychol. 2001;93(1):187–98.
Mayer RE, Moreno R. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol. 2003;38(1):43–52.
Chandler P, Sweller J. Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cogn Instr. 1991;8(4):293–332.
Sweller J. Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press; 1999.
Mayer RE. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE, editor. Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 31–48.
DeLeeuw KE, Mayer RE. A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. J Educ Psychol. 2008;100(1):223–34.
Leacock TL, Nesbit JC. A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educ Technol Soc. 2007;10(2):44–59.
Kirschner PA. Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learn Instr. 2002;12(1):1–10.
Khalil MK, Paas F, Johnson TE, Payer AF. Interactive and dynamic anatomical visualizations: the implication of cognitive load theory. Anat Rec. 2005;286B(1):15–20.
Hegarty M, Just MA. Understanding machines from text and diagrams. In: Mandl H, Levin JR, editors. Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1989. p. 171–94.
Lowe RK. Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learn Instr. 2003;13(2):157–76.
Sweller J. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE, editor. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 19–48.
Lowe R. Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learn Instr. 2004;14:257–74.
Kalyuga S. Prior knowledge principle in multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE, editor. Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 325–38.
Kalyuga, S. Adapting Levels of Instructional Support to Optimize Learning Complex Cognitive Skills. In: S. Kalyuga editor. Managing Cognitive Load in Adaptive Multimedia Learning. Hershey, PA, USA, IGI Global:246–271.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilson, T.D. (2015). Role of Image and Cognitive Load in Anatomical Multimedia. In: Chan, L., Pawlina, W. (eds) Teaching Anatomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08930-0_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08930-0_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08929-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08930-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)