Exploring the Satisfaction Level with the Complete Anatomy-Like Three-Dimensional Anatomy Applications: A Case Study from Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the three-dimensional anatomy learning application, called “Complete Anatomy” on students and to assess user satisfaction. Methods: A survey was conducted among volunteers who had used the application among the first and second-year students at Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine. Participants were asked to complete a ten-question survey measuring age, gender, and application satisfaction. Responses were evaluated on a five-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, version 22.0. Results: A total of 148 participants took part in the study. Of the participants; 69.6% found the application easy to use, 81.8% found the application enjoyable, 78.4% liked the application, 81.8% stated that they learned new things about anatomy through the application, 83.8% preferred such applications over traditional teaching methods, 62.2% felt more prepared for exams after using the application, 80.4% would recommend the application to their friends, 70.9% learned topics they couldn't learn through traditional education, 76.4% stated that the application is easy to understand, and 90.5% believe that the application would be beneficial when used alongside traditional education. Conclusion: The results of the study demonstrated that three-dimensional anatomy applications, such as Complete Anatomy, positively impact student satisfaction and learning experiences. These applications can add variety to education content by being added to traditional learning methods and offer an opportunity to enrich the anatomy learning process for students. However, further research is necessary to better understand the effectiveness of such applications in the future.

Keywords

• Complete Anatomy
• three-dimensional anatomy
• anatomy education
• anatomy learning applications

References

1. Motsinger SK. Complete Anatomy. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020;108(1):155-157. doi:10.5195/jmla.2020.853.
2. Schwartzman G, Ramamurti P. Visible Body Human Anatomy Atlas: Innovative Anatomy Learning. J Digit Imaging. 2021;34(5):1328-1330. doi:10.1007/s10278-021-00496-5.
3. Nicholson DT, Chalk C, Funnell WRJ, Daniel SJ. Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Med Educ. 2006;40(11):1081-1087. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02611.x.
4. Hoyek N, Collet C, Di Rienzo F, De Almeida M, Guillot A. Effectiveness of three-dimensional digital animation in teaching human anatomy in an authentic classroom context. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7(6):430-437. doi:10.1002/ase.1446.
5. Topu FB. Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception towards Gamified Learning Process. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age. 2024;9(1):61-79. doi:10.53850/joltida.1293970.
6. Mayer RE. Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learn Instr. 2014;29:171-173. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.003.
7. Tam MDBS, Hart AR, Williams S, Heylings D, Leinster S. Is learning anatomy facilitated by computer-aided learning? A review of the literature. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):e393-e396. doi:10.1080/01421590802650092.
8. Khalil M k., Johnson T e., Lamar C h. Comparison of computer-based and paper-based imagery strategies in learning anatomy. Clin Anat. 2005;18(6):457-464. doi:10.1002/ca.20158.

9. Nieder GL, Nagy F. Analysis of medical students’ use of Web‐based resources for a gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. 2002;15(6):409-418. doi:10.1002/ca.10067.
10. Mandouit L. Using student feedback to improve teaching. Educ Action Res. 2018;26(5):755-769. doi:10.1080/09650792.2018.1426470.
11. Darius PSH, Gundabattini E, Solomon DG. A Survey on the Effectiveness of Online Teaching–Learning Methods for University and College Students. J Inst of Eng (India): B. 2021;102(6):1325-1334. doi:10.1007/s40031-021-00581-x.
12. Berk RA. Beyond Student Ratings. In: Ellis R, Hogard E, eds. Handbook of Quality Assurance for University Teaching. 1st ed. Routledge; 2018:317-344. doi:10.4324/9781315187518-24.
13. Moxham B j., Plaisant O. Perception of medical students towards the clinical relevance of anatomy. Clin Anat. 2007;20(5):560-564. doi:10.1002/ca.20453.
14. Böckers A, Jerg-Bretzke L, Lamp C, Brinkmann A, Traue HC, Böckers TM. The gross anatomy course: An analysis of its importance. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(1):3-11. doi:10.1002/ase.124.
15. Winkelmann A. Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Med Educ. 2007;41(1):15-22. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02625.x.
16. Moro C, Štromberga Z, Raikos A, Stirling A. The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(6):549-559. doi:10.1002/ase.1696.
17. Lewis TL, Burnett B, Tunstall RG, Abrahams PH. Complementing anatomy education using three-dimensional anatomy mobile software applications on tablet computers. Clin Anat. 2014;27(3):313-320. doi:10.1002/ca.22256.