Breaking Down Barriers to Learning with Stereoscopic 3D Technology: Comparison of Google Cardboard, Red‐Cyan Anaglyphs & Glasses‐Free 3D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION We previously developed a free‐to‐download 3D virtual reality (VR) anatomical quiz app (VRBR https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.MacAnatomy.VRBR2 ) and provided it to 850 undergraduate anatomy and physiology students in Sept 2018, along with the required Google Cardboard headsets. The app utilized Google Cardboard to allow for an inexpensive VR viewing experience of digitally‐pinned side‐by‐side (SBS) stereo pairs from David L. Bassett’s A Stereoscopic Atlas of Human Anatomy . Survey data was collected to determine how students used this new technology as a self‐test in their learning. Students expressed multiple barriers to using the app, including: the quiz questions were separate from the 3D images (31%), the app was too large (20%), students felt nauseated (19%), or the app was incompatible with their smartphone (8%). These issues led to much lower student usage than expected. Bottom line: it doesn’t matter how effective a new technology may be for learning, if students won’t use it in the first place. The PURPOSE of our study was to evaluate if student usage increases when barriers to use are removed by using alternate 3D viewing formats. We chose to compare red‐cyan anaglyphs to SBS stereo pairs because anaglyphs could address several of the concerns expressed by students. METHODS Digitally labeled anaglyphs were hosted on the learning management system (LMS) used by the university. Student usage of the anaglyphs was tracked over the first semester of the 2019–20 year and compared to the usage of the SBS stereo pairs over the first semester of the 2018–19 year. Student usage was determined from the number of quiz submissions on the university’s LMS at 3 time points during the term. Statistical analysis was performed with Graphpad Prism. RESULTS Between the start of term and the start of the midterm recess (5 wks) the anaglyph study aid increased usage by 82% over the prior year using SBS stereo pairs. Prior to the practice practical exam at midterm, the anaglyph study aid usage was 138% greater than SBS stereo pairs. The average number of quiz submissions per week using the anaglyphs vs SBS stereo pairs increased by 135% (n=3, one‐tailed student t‐test, p<0.02). CONCLUSION Our results demonstrate that red‐cyan anaglyphs are more readily used by students to view 3D images in a self‐study application compared to SBS stereo pairs on Google Cardboard. This suggests that students are more willing to utilize a new technology when the barriers to use are minimized. Although the use of anaglyphs increased the number of quiz submissions, the red‐cyan format distorts colors, introducing a new barrier to use. It is likely that a 3D format that also removes this new barrier would increase the use of the study aid even further. We plan to test this hypothesis by comparing anaglyphs to images presented on a glasses‐free 3D display (Alioscopy http://www.alioscopy.com/en/3Ddisplays.php ). Qualitative data on the ease of use as well as quantitative data on quiz performance will be compared.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".