Tıp Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Mobil Artırılmış Gerçeklikle Anatomi Öğrenimine Yönelik Görüşleri

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 3, 316 - 323, 01.12.2015

Sevda Küçük Samet Kapakin Yüksel Göktaş

Öz

Son yıllarda artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamalarının mobil cihazlar üzerinden oluşturulabilmesi, ‘mobil artırılmış gerçeklik’ çalışmalarını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışmada tıp fakültesi anatomi eğitiminde ‘mobil artırılmış gerçeklik’ uygulamalarının kullanılmasına odaklanılmıştır. Çalışmanın amacı tıp fakültesi öğrencilerinin ‘mobil artırılmış gerçeklik’ ile anatomi öğrenimine yönelik görüşlerini belirlemektir. Çalışmada karma araştırma yöntemlerinden açıklayıcı desen kullanılmıştır. Amaçlı ve rastgele örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen çalışmanın örneklemini ikinci sınıfta öğrenim gören 34 tıp fakültesi öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak görüş anketi ve görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel analiz yöntemlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen verilere göre, öğrencilerin ‘mobil artırılmış gerçeklik’ ile öğrenmeye yönelik görüşleri olumludur. Özellikle, öğrenciler ‘mobil artırılmış gerçeklik’ ile öğrenmenin gerçeklik hissi oluşturduğunu, konuyu somutlaştırdığını, derse karşı ilgiyi artırdığını, esnek bir öğrenme ortamı sağlayarak bireysel çalışmalarında faydalı olduğunu vurgulamışlardır. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlara göre, anatomi eğitiminde ‘mobil artırılmış gerçeklik’ uygulamalarının yaygınlaştırılması faydalı olacaktır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mobil artırılmış gerçeklik, Mobil öğrenme, Anatomi eğitimi, Tıp fakültesi öğrencileri

Medical Faculty Students’ Views on Anatomy Learning via Mobile Augmented Reality Technology

Öz

With the augmented reality applications via mobile phones created in recent years, ‘mobile augmented reality’ studies have revealed. In this study, it is focused on using ‘mobile augmented reality’ applications in anatomy education. The purpose of this study is to determine the medical faculty students’views on anatomy learning via ‘mobile augmented reality’ technology. Explanatory design with mixed methods was applied in this study. The purposive, random sample consists of 34 sophomore students, studying medicine. As data collection tools, questionnaire and interview form were used. Descriptive analysis methods were used in the data analysis. Results showed students’ views toward ‘mobile augmented reality’ based learning were highly positive. Students especially emphasized how ‘mobile augmented reality’ based learning generated sense of reality, materialized the subjects, increased interest in the lesson and was beneficial for individual study by providing a flexible learning environment. In conclusion, it would be beneficial for ‘mobile augmented reality’ applications to be incorporated in anatomy education

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mobile augmented reality, Mobile learning, Anatomy education, Medical faculty students

Kaynakça

• Alkhamisi, A. O., & Monowar, M. M. (2013). Rise of augmented reality: Current and future application areas. International Journal of Internet and Distributed Systems, 1(4), 25-34.
• Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.
• Blum T., Kleeberger V., Christoph Bichlmeier C., & Navab N. (2012). Miracle: An augmented reality magic mirror system for anatomy education. IEEE Virtual Reality (pp. 115-116). Retrieved from http://campar.in.tum.de/pub/blum2012vr/ blum2012vr.pdf
• Borrero, A. M., & Marquez, J. M. A. (2012). A pilot study of the effectiveness of augmented reality to enhance the use of remote laboratories in electrical engineering education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 540-557.
• Bujak, K.R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., MacIntyre, B., Zheng, R., & Golubski, G. (2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 536–544.
• Cai, S., Chiang, F. K., & Wang, X. (2013). Using the Augmented Reality 3D technique for a convex ımaging experiment in a physics course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(4), 856–865.
• Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, M. (2011). Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 51(1), 341-377.
• Chang, Y. J., Chen, C. H., Huang, W. T., & Huang, W. S. (2011). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of English learning using augmented reality. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
• Chen, Y. S., Kao, T. C., & Sheu, J. P. (2003). A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 347–359.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
• Denk, M., Weber, M., & Belfin, R. (2007). Mobile learningchallenges and potentials. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 1(2), 122–139.
• Deveci-Topal, A., & Ocak, M. A. (2014). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamı ile hazırlanan anatomi dersinin öğrencilerin akademik başarıları üzerindeki etkisi. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 4(1), 48-62
• Di Serio, A., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68(11), 586-596.
• Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22.
• Fitzgerald, J. E., White, M. J., Tang S. W., Maxwell-Armstrong, C. A., & James, D. K. (2008). Are we teaching sufficient anatomy at medical school? The opinions of newly qualified doctors. Clinical Anatomy, 21(7), 718-24.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
• Gebril, Z. M., Tele I. M. A., Tahir, M. A., Parhizkar, B., Ramachandran A., & Lashraki A. H. (2012). Ubiquitous medical learning using augmented reality based on cognitive information theory. Advances in Computer Science, Engineering & Applications, 167, 305-312.
• Hamza-Lup, F. G., Rolland J., & Hughes C. (2004). A distributed augmented reality system for medical training and simulation.
• Energy, Simulation-Training, Ocean Engineering and Instrumentation: Research Papers of the Link Foundation Fellows, 4, 213-235, Rochester Press.
• Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 343–351.
• Hwang, G. J., Yang, T. C., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. H. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Computers & Education, 53(2), 402–413.
• Kamphuis, C., Barsom, E., Schijven, M. & Christoph, N. (2014). Augmented reality in medical education? Perspectives on Medical Education, 3(4), 300-311.
• Khalil, M. K., Lamar, C. H. & Johnson, T. E. (2005). Using computerbased interactive imagery strategies for designing instructional anatomy programs. Clinical Anatomy, 18(1), 68-76.
• Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
• Liaw, S. S. (2007). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873.
• Liaw, S. S., Hatala, M., & Huang, H. M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education, 54(2), 446–454.
• Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Saorín, J. L., Contero, M., Alcañiz, M., Pérez-López, D., & Ortega, M. (2010). Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students. Computers & Graphics, 34(1), 77-91.
• McLachlan, J. C., Bligh, J., Bradley P., & Searle, J. (2004). Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Medical Education, 38(4), 418-424.
• McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education -evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). London: Pearson.
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Meng, M., Fallavollita, P., Blum, T., Eck, U., Sandor, C., Weidert, S., Waschke, J., & Navab, N. (2013). Kinect for interactive AR anatomy learning. IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 277–278.
• Milgram, P., & Kishino, A. F. (1994). Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329.
• Nicholson, D. T., Chalk, C., Funnell, W. R., & Daniel, S. J. (2006) Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Medical Education, 40(11), 1081–1087.
• O’Connell, M., & Smith, J. (2007). A guide to working with mlearning standards: A manual for teachers trainers and developers. Sydney, Australia: Australian Flexible Learning Network.
• Paalman, M. H. (2000). New frontiers in anatomy education. Anatomical Record, 261(2), 47-47.
• Patirupanusara, P. (2012). Marker-based augmented reality magic book for anatomical education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer and Communication Technologies (pp. 136-138), Phuket, Thailand. Retrieved from http://psrcentre.org/images/extraimages/28%20512652.pdf
• Petersson, H., Sinkvist, D., Wang, C., & Smedby, O. (2009). Web-based interactive 3D visualization as a tool for improved anatomy learning. Anatomical Sciences Education, 2(2), 61-68.
• Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/PrenskyThe_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf
• Thomas, R. G., John, N. W., & Delieu, J. M. (2010). Augmented reality for anatomical education. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 33(1), 6-15.
• Topping, D. B. (2014). Gross anatomy videos: student satisfaction, usage, and effect on student performance in a condensed curriculum. Anatomical Sciences Education, 7(4), 273-279.
• Waterson, S. W., & Stewart, I. J. (2005). Survey of clinicians’ attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clinical Anatomy, 18(5), 380–384.
• Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, 68, 570–585.
• Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education, Computers & Education, 62, 41-49.
• van Krevelen, D. W. F., & Poelman, R. (2010). A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1–20.
• Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downloa d?doi=10.1.1.454.8190&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• von Jan U, Noll C., Behrends M., & Albrecht U. V.(2012). mARble – augmented reality in medical education. Biomedical Engineering/Biomedizinische Technik, 57(Suppl. 1), 67-70.
• Yeom, S., Choi-Lundberg, D., Fluck, A., & Sale, A. (2013). User acceptance of a haptic interface for learning anatomy, Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on eLearning 2013, IADIS Press (International Association for Development of the Information Society), (pp. 239-246). Czech Republic.
• Yusoff, R. C. M., Zaman, H. B., & Ahmad, A. (2011). Evaluation of user acceptance of mixed reality technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27 (Special issue, 8), 1369- 1387.