Skip to main content
Download PDF

Fostering engagement in virtual anatomy learning for healthcare students

BMC Medical Education volume 24, Article number: 414 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The use of virtual learning platforms is on the rise internationally, however, successful integration into existing curricula is a complex undertaking fraught with unintended consequences. Looking beyond medical and pedagogic literature can provide insight into factors affecting the user experience. The technology acceptance model, widely used in software evaluation, can be used to identify barriers and enablers of engagement with virtual learning platforms. Here, the technology acceptance model was used to scaffold the exploration of the factors that influenced students' perceptions of the virtual anatomy platform, Anatomage and how these shaped their intention to use it.

Methods

Focus groups identified factors influencing students use of the Anatomage tables. Interventions were rolled out to address these findings, then further focus groups and the technology acceptance model identified how factors including self-efficacy, enjoyment, and social norms influenced students’ intention to use the Anatomage table in the future.

Results

Students raised significant concerns about understanding how to use the Anatomage table. Moreover, students who considered themselves to be poor at using technology perceived the Anatomage table as more complicated to use. The subjective norm of the group significantly altered the perceived ease of use and usefulness of the Anatomage. However, enjoyment had the greatest impact in influencing both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Indicating that enjoyment is the largest contributing factor in altering technology engagement in healthcare cohorts and has the biggest potential to be manipulated to promote engagement.

Conclusions

Focus groups used in tandem with the technology acceptance model provide an effective way to understand student perceptions around technology used in the healthcare curricula. This research determined interventions that promote student engagement with virtual learning platforms, which are important in supporting all healthcare programmes that incorporate technology enhanced learning.

Peer Review reports

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Banerjee S, Pham T, Eastaway A, Auffermann WF, Quigley REP. The use of virtual reality in teaching three-dimensional anatomy and pathology on CT. J Digit Imaging. 2023;36:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ben Awadh A, Clark J, Clowry G, Keenan ID. Multimodal three-dimensional visualization enhances novice learner interpretation of basic cross-sectional anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(1):127–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Means K, Voges A, Ritter NL. Students with access to 3D study materials are better able to translate spatial relationships between abdominal organs and correctly interpret abnormal radiographic images. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2023;64(3):521–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson AB, Brown KM, Misch J, Miller CH, Klein BA, Taylor MA, et al. Breaking with tradition : a scoping meta-analysis analyzing the effects of student-centered learning and computer-aided instruction on student performance in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12(1):61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cilliers E. The challenge of teaching generation Z. People: Int J Soc Sci. 2017;3:188–98.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stjepić A-M, Vukšić M, Suša VD. Digital literacy of the generation z students and their attitudes and beliefs towards ICT knowledge and skills. Vallis Aurea. 2019;5(1):17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vizcaya-Moreno MF, Pérez-Cañaveras RM. Social media used and teaching methods preferred by generation z students in the nursing clinical learning environment: a cross-sectional research study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):8267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen S, Zhu J, Cheng C, Pan Z, Liu L, Du J, et al. Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy education programmes? A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dreher SM, DePhilip R, Bahner D. Ultrasound exposure during gross anatomy. J Emerg Med. 2014;46(2):231–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Diaz CM. Beyond the classroom: inspiring medical and health science students to learn surface anatomy. Med Sci Educ. 2022;32(2):361–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fleagle TR, Borcherding NC, Harris J, Hoffmann DS. Application of flipped classroom pedagogy to the human gross anatomy laboratory: Student preferences and learning outcomes. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11(4):385–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nicholson LL, Reed D, Chan C. An interactive, multi-modal anatomy workshop improves academic performance in the health sciences: a cohort study. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet. 357. England2001. p. 363–4.

  14. Raja BS, Chandra A, Azam MQ, Das S, Agarwal A. Anatomage - the virtual dissection tool and its uses: A narrative review. J Postgrad Med <div aria-hidden="true" aria-label="Dropdown menu for journal Journal of postgraduate medicine" class="journal-actions-dropdown dropdown dropdown-container" id="full-view-journal" style="box-sizing: inherit; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 015); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 03) 0px 3px 14rem -04rem; visibility: hidden; opacity: 0; transition: opacity 03s ease 0s, transform 03s ease 0s, visibility 0s linear 03s, -webkit-transform 03s ease 0s; position: absolute; z-index: 1000; transform: translate3d(0px, -10%, 0px); top: 21px; left: 0px; margin-top: 15rem; padding: 12rem 16rem 16rem; right: auto; margin-left: -1rem;">. 2022;68(3):156–61.

  15. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon. 2001;9:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis Sci. 1996;27(3):451–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Teo T, Noyes J. An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Comput Educ. 2011;57(2):1645–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Park SY. An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educ Technol Soc. 2009;12(3):150–62.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yi MY, Hwang Y. Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2003;59(4):431–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schepers J, Wetzels M. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Inform Manag. 2007;44(1):90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jang J, Ko Y, Shin WS, Han I. Augmented reality and virtual reality for learning: an examination using an extended technology acceptance model. IEEE access. 2021;9:6798–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1992;22(14):1111–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee J, Kim J, Choi JY. The adoption of virtual reality devices: The technology acceptance model integrating enjoyment, social interaction, and strength of the social ties. Telematics Inform. 2019;39:37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Artino AR, La Rochelle JS, Durning S. Second-year medical students’ motivational beliefs, emotions, and achievement. Med Educ. 2010;44(12):1203–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Amit Singh B, Surya Kumari N, Rani VS. A Study on student perception of virtual dissection table (Anatomage) at GSL Medical College, Rajahmundry. Acad Anat Int. 2018;4(2):28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Owolabi JO, Ojiambo R, Seifu D, Nishimwe A, Masimbi O, Okorie E, et al. A study of anatomy teachers’ perception and acceptance of the anatomage table technology and digital teaching materials in the training of medical and allied health students. Cereus. 2022;14(12):e32163.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Marangunić N, Granić A. Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2015;14(1):81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bartoletti-Stella A, Gatta V, Mariani GA, Gobbi P, Falconi M, Manzoli L, et al. Three-dimensional virtual anatomy as a new approach for medical student’s learning. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):13247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bork FAO, Stratmann L, Enssle S, Eck U, Navab N, Waschke J, et al. The benefits of an augmented reality magic mirror system for integrated radiology teaching in gross anatomy. Anatom Sci Educ. 2019;12(6):585–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fyfe S, Fyfe G, Dye D, Radley-Crabb H. The anatomage table: differences in student ratings between initial implementation and established use. Focus Health Prof Educ. 2018;19(2):41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Crocco F, Offenholley K, Hernandez C. A proof-of-concept study of game-based learning in higher education. Simul Gaming. 2016;47(4):403–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rudolphi-Solero T, Lorenzo-Alvarez R, Ruiz-Gomez MJ, Sendra-Portero F. Impact of compulsory participation of medical students in a multiuser online game to learn radiological anatomy and radiological signs within the virtual world second life. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(5):863–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Krishnamurthy K, Selvaraj N, Gupta P, Cyriac B, Dhurairaj P, Abdullah A, et al. Benefits of gamification in medical education. Clin Anat. 2022;35(6):795–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Masuko TS, Andrade LDS, Da Mata DR, De Souza Machado A, Lomba EL, Do Nascimento MA. Gamification as a tool for medical education in anatomy: a preliminary study. FASEB J. 2019;33(S1):604.1-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Li Z, Zuo T, Wei X, Ding N. ICT Self-efficacy scale: the correlations with the age of first access to the internet, the age at first ownership of a personal computer (PC), and a smartphone. Med Educ Online. 2022;28:1087–2981 ((Electronic))).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Banjoko A, Boylan C, Kumar H, McCabe H, Morris S. 557 a novel peer-led anatomage-based teaching programme for medical students. British J Surg. 2021;108(Supplement_2):znab134.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Benè KL, Bergus GR. When learners become teachers: a review of peer teaching in medical student education. Fam Med. 2014;46(10):783–7.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Evans DJR, Cuffe T. Near-peer teaching in anatomy: an approach for deeper learning. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(5):227–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Waddington J. Self-efficacy. ELT J. 2023;77(2):237–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zilundu PLM, Chibhabha F, Yu G, Fu R, Zhou L-H. Pre-clinical medical students’ use of motivational and cognitive study strategies during anatomy learning: a three-year cross-sectional survey. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(3):522–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shittu DL. Does neuro-anatomy award/ prize impact on student performance in the first professional examination in anatomy. 2017.

  44. Igbaria M, Iivari J. The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega. 1995;23(6):587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project was funded internally through the Department of Education Scholarship Award through the Peninsula Medical School.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

    Lauren Singer, Lily Evans, Daniel Zahra, Ifeoluwa Agbeja & Siobhan Moyes

Authors
  1. Lauren Singer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lily Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Zahra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ifeoluwa Agbeja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Siobhan Moyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Lauren Singer – conception, design, analysis, interpretation, draft and revision. Lily Evans – design, analysis, interpretation, and revision. Daniel Zahra – analysis, interpretation, and revision. Ife Agbeja -analysis and interpretation. Siobhan Moyes – conception, design, analysis, interpretation, and revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren Singer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research for the 2018 and 2022 studies was approved by the University of Plymouth Faculty of Health Research Ethics and Integrity Committee (project IDs 17/18–833 and 3130). All participants provided informed consent when participating in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Questions asked in student focus groups. The questions listed were those specifically relating to the Anatomage table.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singer, L., Evans, L., Zahra, D. et al. Fostering engagement in virtual anatomy learning for healthcare students. BMC Med Educ 24, 414 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05278-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05278-5

Keywords

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us