Using Multimedia and Virtual Simulations to Enhance Transfer of Knowledge In Anatomy Instruction

A Study Submitted for EPET Practicum RequirementAndy SaltarelliOctober 2010

IntroductionMultimedia and virtual simulations are providing new learning contexts within which to explore learning transfer

Anatomy instruction is well-suited for multimedia and simulations, highly reliant on the understanding of spatial relationships and the need for safe, easy, and controlled exploration of delicate anatomical structures.

Thus, an experimental-control design was used to test the effects of a multimedia, and virtual simulation learning system, Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0 (APR 2.0), on learning transfer in an undergraduate anatomy course.

Learning TransferBasic Transfer - making a connection between a very specific piece of knowledge and an identical (or nearly identical) piece of knowledge in a new context (Thorndike, 1922)

Identification Transfer - being able to correctly identify anatomical structures learned during lab on a real cadaver during exams

Meaningful Learning - learning that “provides explanations of how something works” (Mayer, 2003, p. 128)

Explanatory Transfer - being able to explain how an anatomical system works

Learning TransferCadaver Only Transfer

APR Transfer

CadaverCadaverLabLab

CadaverCadaverExamExam

Identification

Explanatory

Transfer Source

Transfer Target

APRAPRLabLab

CadaverCadaverExamExam

Identification

Explanatory

Transfer Target

Transfer Source

Multimedia Effects on Transfer

Def. presentation of verbal and pictorial forms of information (Mayer, 2005)

Empirical Results Mixed:

Yes - Cognitive efficiency (Cobb, 1997), harness dual-channel processing (Mayer, 2003)

No - Mere delivery method (Clark, 1983), no effect when instructional method controlled for (Bernard et al., 2004), overtaxes working memory (Sweller, 2005)

Multimedia Effects on Anatomy Learning

Two non-randomized experimental studies:

Mixed results (Jones et al., 1978)

Multimedia better (Siegel & Foster, 2001)

One randomized experimental study:

Key views + low learner control = highest achievement, multimedia used in all groups (Levinson et al, 2007)

Simulation Effects on Transfer

Physical simulator vs. model-based (Winn et al., 2006), APR model-based

Used to increase higher order thinking (Gokhale, 1996)

Transfer of scientific principles to novel situations (Goldstone & Son, 2005)

Used to enhance constructivist forms of instruction (De Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998)

Simulation Effects on Anatomy Learning

Two experiments with learning outcomes:

randomized 6-week study, simulation group better on exams (Hisley et al, 2007)

non-randomized 10-week study using APR 1.0, simulation group better on exams (Nasr, 2007)

Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0

Virtual Dissection

Image Masked

Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0

Animations Imaging (CT & MRI)

Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0

Histology

Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0

Self Quiz

Image Masked

MethodsParticipants

N = 233

15 lab sections

Randomly assigned by lab to APR or cadaver-only

MethodProcedures - Assignment Counter-Balanced

Exam 1 Blood Vessels to Brain

Exam 2Cerebral Spinal Fluid

APR in APR in Lab Lab

N =115N =115

Cadaver Cadaver onlyonly

N = 118N = 118

Exam 1Exam 1

APR in APR in LabLab

N = 118N = 118

Cadaver Cadaver onlyonly

N = 115N = 115

Exam 2Exam 22 weeks2 weeks 2 weeks2 weeks

MethodProcedures - Independent Variable

Instructional Technology: Cadaver or APR

Both viewed the same 20-minute unit introduction video

Lab scaffolds given to each with identical learning objective same order

Both given 55 minutes to study on given instructional technology

MethodProcedures - Dependent Variables

Identification Transfer (5 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .66)

E.g., “identify the blood vessel marked by pin number one”

Explanatory Transfer ( 5 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .67)

E.g., “name the organ that pinned blood vessel number nine supplies”

Total Score (composite of above)

Qualitative (1 open-ended question)

ResultsQuantitative

ResultsQuantitative (Exam 1 & 2 combined)

Multivariate Omnibus for Condition and Exam

ResultsQualitative

“Do you feel that APR Revealed software helped you to learn the material for this two-week unit? Why or why not?”

Yes (21%)

Somewhat (34%)

No (45%)

Interrater Reliability, Kappa = .82

Chi Square (2, 247) = 21.99, p < .001

Results

Qualitative

“Why or why not?”

APR Useful:

#1 clearly pick and highlight, #2 animations, #3 “move” through layers

APR Not Useful:

#1 need more time, #2 can’t transfer to cadaver, #3 needs hands-on interaction

Discussion

Cadaver-only students performed better than with APR on both forms of transfer

Supports “identical element theory” of learning transfer (Thorndike, 1922)

Contrasts work on simulations finding they can reproduce contexts and elements identical to those in real world (Goldstone & Son, 2005)

Discussion

Direct contrast to Nasr (2007) study using APR, why?

Time - 55 minutes vs. 10 weeks

And perhaps more pre-training (Mayer & Moreno, 2003)

Tech acceptance (Venkatesh, 2000) - perceived usefulness + perceived ease of use = behavioral intention to use tech

DiscussionLimitations

More time and better pre-training w/ APR

Better control of treatment diffusion and/or groups influencing opinions of others

Students felt somewhat forced to use APR, concern about its influence on grade (even though EC)

More formally build APR into course

Better Measures (e.g., adapt extant measure of learning transfer)