How Does Collaborative 3D Screen-Based Computer Simulation Training Influence Diagnostic Skills of Radiographic Images and Peer Communication?

Abstract

This study compares the influence of two learning conditions – a screen-based virtual reality radiology simulator and a conventional PowerPoint slide presentation – that teach radiographic interpretation to dental students working in small collaborative groups. The study focused on how the students communicated and how proficient they became at radiographic interpretation. The sample consisted of 36 participants – 20 women and 16 men – and used a pretest/posttest group design with the participants randomly assigned to either a simulation-training group (SIM) or conventional-training group (CON) with three students in each collaborative group. The proficiency tests administered before and after training assessed interpretations of spatial relations in radiographs using parallax. The training sessions were video-recorded. The results showed that SIM groups exhibited significant development between pretest and posttest results, whereas the CON groups did not. The collaboration in the CON groups involved inclusive peer discussions, thorough interpretations of the images, and extensive use of subject-specific terminology. The SIM group discussions were much more fragmented and included more action proposals based on their actions with the simulator. The different learning conditions produced different results with respect to acquiring understanding of radiographic principles.

Keywords

• Educational computer based simulations, Collaborative learning, Health care education, 3D Simulations, Peer communication

References

1. Badeleh, A. & Sheela, G. (2011). The effects of information and communication technology based approach and laboratory training model of teaching on achievement and retention I chemistry. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(3), 213-237.
2. Bolton, K., Saalman, E., Christie, M., Ingerman, Å., & Linder, C. (2008). SimChemistry as an active learning tool in chemical education. Chemistry Education Research Practice, 9(3), 274-284.
3. Chang, K-E., Chen, Y-L., Lin, H-Y., & Sung, Y-T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation- based physics learning. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1486-1498.
4. Dalgarno, B. & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments. British Journal of Educational technology, 41(1), 10-32.
5. de Freitas, S. & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated. Computers & Education, 46(3), 249- 264.
6. de Freitas, S. & Neumann, T. (2009). The use of ’exploratory learning’ for supporting immersive learning in virtual environments. Computers & Education, 52(2), 343-352.
7. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä ,S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer- supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 3-19). Berlin: Springer.
8. Engel, P.J.H. (2008). Tacit knowledge and visual expertise in medical diagnostic reasoning: Implications for medical education. Medical Teacher, 30, 184-188.

9. Engum, S. A., Jeffries, P., & Fisher, L. (2003). Intravenous catheter training system: Computer- based education versus traditional learning methods. The American Journal of Surgery, 186, 67-74.
10. Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the Intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 361-407.
11. Finkelstein , N.D., Adams, W.K., Keller, C.J., Kohl, P.B., LeMaster, R., Perkins, K.K.,Podolefsky, N.S. & Reid, S. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1).
12. Higgins, S., Mercier, E., Burd, L., & Joyce-Gibbons, A. (2011). Multi-touch tables and collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2011.01259.x
13. Hindmarsh J. (2010). Peripherality, Participation and Communities of Practice: Examining the patient in dental training. In N. Llewellyn & J. Hindmarsh (Eds.), Organisation, interaction and practice (pp. 218-240). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Hmelo, C., & Day, R. (1999). Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations. Computers & Education, 32(2), 151-164.
15. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41(4), 397-420.
16. Holzinger, A., Kickmeier–Rust, M.D., Wassertheurer, S., & Hessinger, M. (2009). Learning performance with interactive simulations in medical education: Lessons learned from results of learning complex physiological models with the HAEMOdynamics SIMulator. Computers & Education, 52(2), 292-301.
17. Ingerman, Å., Linder, C. & Marshall, D. (2009). The learners´ experience of variation: Following students´threads of learning physics in computer simulation settings. Instructional Science , 37(3), 273-292.
18. Issenberg, B.S., McGaghie, W.C., Petrusa, E.M., Gordon, D.L., & Scalese R.J. (2005). Features and uses of high – fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher, 27 (1), 10-28.
19. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
20. Juul, Christensen, U., Heffernan, D., & Barach, P. (2001). Microsimulators in medical education: An overview. Simulation & Gaming,3(2), 250-262.
21. Krange, I., Moen, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2012). Computer-based 3D simulation: A study of communication practices in trauma team performing patient examination and diagnostic work. Instructional Science, 40(5), 829-847.
22. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, NJ: Sage.
23. Lane, L.J., Slavin, S., & Ziv, A. (2001). Simulation in medical education: A review. Simulation& Gaming, 32(3), 297-314.
24. Liu, H. C., Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. (2008). The impact of learner's prior knowledge on their use of chemistry computer simulations: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 466-482.
25. Loke, S-W., Tordoff, J., Winikoff, M., McDonald, J., Vlugter, P., & Duffull, S. (2011). SimPharm: How pharmacy students made meaning of a clinical case differently in paper- and simulation-based workshops. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 865-874.
26. Mayer, B.W., Dale, K.M., Fraccastoro, K.A., & Moss, G. (2011) Improving transfer of learning: Relationship to Methods of Using Business Simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 42(1), 64- 84.
27. Mercer, N. (2005). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137-168.
28. Mörch, A. I., Dolonen, J. A., & Naevdal, J.E. (2005). An evolutionary approach to prototyping pedagogical agents: from simulation to integrated system. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 29(2-3), 177-199.
29. Nivala, M., Säljö, R., Rystedt, H., Kronqvist, P., & Lehtinen, E. (2012). Using virtual microscopy to scaffold learning of pathology: A naturalistic experiment on the role of visual and conceptual cues. Instructional Science, 40(5), 799-811.
30. Quinn, F., Keogh P., McDonald, A., & Hussey, D. (2003). A study comparing the effectiveness of conventional training and virtual reality simulation in the skills acquisition of junior dental students. European Journal of Dental Education, 7(4), 164-169.
31. Rieber, L.P., Tzeng, S-C. & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 307-323.
32. Rogers, L. (2011). Developing simulations in multi-user virtual environments to enhance healthcare education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 608-615
33. Rystedt, H. & Lindwall, O. (2004). The interactive construction of learning foci in simulation- based learning environments: A case study of an anaesthesia course. PsychNology Journal, 2(2), 165-188.
34. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
35. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27(2), 4-13.
36. Silvennoinen, M., Helfenstein, S., Ruoranen, M., & Saariluoma, P. (2012). Learning basic surgical skills through simulator training. Instructional Science, 40(5), 769-783.
37. Stoik, J.H. (2001). Technology´s role in collaboration. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(1), 37-46.
38. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39. Yeh, Y.C. (2004). Nurturing reflective teaching during critical-thinking instruction in a computer simulation program. Computers & Education, 42(2), 181-194.
40. Zagal, J.P., Rick, J., & His, I. (2006). Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. Simulation & Gaming, 37(1), 24-40.
41. Correspondence: Tor Sodestrom, Department of Education, Umea University, S-901 87 Umea, Sweden