The Reality of Using Virtual Reality: Understanding How Undergraduate Students use a Virtual Bell Ringer App to Study Anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction With the increasing number of online resources for anatomical education available to students, understanding why students use one resource over another is crucial for resource design. The benefit of using stereoscopic images in anatomical education has recently been demonstrated (Remmele et al, 2018; Cui et al, 2017). However, few resources utilize stereopsis in depicting anatomical dissections. Using images from the Stereoscopic Atlas of Human Anatomy (D.L. Bassett & W.B. Gruber, Stanford University, 1962), we developed a smartphone application that uses the Google cardboard platform to visualize stereoscopic images in an inexpensive and accessible manner. The app was implemented in a second year undergraduate anatomy and physiology course with 975 students. The app was designed to incorporate virtual pins in the 3D space that enabled it to be used as a self‐evaluated Objective Structured Practical Exam (OSPE) called the Virtual Reality Bell Ringer (VRBR). Questions and answers accompanying the images were provided on the online course management system. This allowed the use of the app to be correlated with course evaluation performance. The PURPOSE of this study was to track use of the app by students, get feedback to develop better online resources, and correlate the app use with final scores. Methods 67 OSPE practice questions using stereo pairs from the Bassett collection were selected, 30 of which pertained to the first semester: 5 questions for each of 6 bi‐weekly labs. Questions related to each sets of images were available throughout the semester and students had unlimited attempts to successfully answer the questions. Upon submitting their response, students would see their answer, the correct answer, and the rationale behind the answer. Student participation and correlation between their VRBR score and multiple choice (MCQ) midterm exam were evaluated. Results By mid‐semester, 89 of 975 students attempted the VRBR practice questions. Of those who participated in the VRBR quiz, 93% achieved above average scores on their MCQ midterm exam. Correlation of midterm scores with successful VRBR question responses for the lowest, middle, and highest third percentile‐scoring students resulted in Pearson correlation coefficients (r) of 0.39, 0.5, and 0.78, respectively. This indicates that there is a good correlation between success on the VRBR practice questions and success on different types of course evaluations. Although 91% of students did not use the app to prepare for the midterm MCQ exam, a qualitative mid‐semester survey of app use revealed that 51% planned to complete the VRBR questions prior to the final OSPE exam. Only 13% of students reported that they feel that the app would not prepare them for the final exam. Conclusion Despite less than 10% of students using the app at mid‐semester, a large proportion planned to use the app to prepare for the final exam. There was a correlation between success on the midterm MCQ and VRBR quizzes, however, this is probably correlative rather than causative. Evaluation of VRBR app use on the outcome of the final OSPE exam will occur at the end of the first and second semesters. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".