1. The Effects of Virtual Labs and
Cooperative Learning in Anatomy
Instruction
Andy Saltarelli, Ph.D.
ASSETT
University of Colorado – Boulder
William Saltarelli, Ph.D.
College of Health Professions
Central Michigan University
Cary Roseth, Ph.D.
College of Education
Michigan State University
POD Conference 2012, Seattle, WA
10. Story – Human Anatomy
300 students per semester
4 credit course
15 cadaver-based lab sections taught
by 7 GAs
1 large lecture and 2 labs per week
Grade of D, E or Withdrawal ~30%
Feeder/Weeder Course
11. Story - Study #1
Simulated Lab Cadaver Lab
APR Only Cadaver
Lab VS Only Lab
Conclusions:
Results: Cadaver-only students performed better than APR-only
Explanation: Technology pre-training & student perceptions of
software were poor
Solution: Infuse active learning (e.g., cooperative learning) to
ameliorate observed negative effects of simulation software
23. Results: Achievement
Result: Students who participated in the jigsaw activity
performed better than those that didn’t on the 1-week
retention quiz. (Wilks's λ=.97, F(1,218) p = .04)
25. Results: Motivation
Result: Students who participated in the jigsaw activity had
higher motivation* than those who didn’t participate. *F=5.96,
P=.01
27. Results: Motivation
Result: Results suggest* that the jigsaw activity ameliorated
decreases in motivation observed in the APR group. *Jig x APR
Interaction, F = 6.57, p = .01
28. Results: Task-technology Fit
Result: Students’ perceptions of task-technology fit was
greater in jigsaw over individual learning. *Wilks's λ=.95, F(1,213) p < .01
29. Study #2 – Results
Qualitative (Regarding Jigsaw Activity):
•I liked how I was able to teach and be taught at the same time.
•Iliked teaching my objectives to others. It helped me learn more in
depth.
•Iliked this activity because it allows us to work together more and
receive feedback from each other.
•I
enjoyed teaching the material to others. It makes it so I have to
master it in order to teach it.
•Thegroup activity helped me get more involved and learn different
ways to study the material.
30. Conclusions
Jigsaw cooperative learning provides clear advantages
over traditional, individual lab learning methods in
anatomy instruction
Results suggest that jigsaw cooperative learning
ameliorates the initial negative effects of introducing
new virtual software
The positive effects of cooperative learning pedagogy
appear to “spill over” onto students’ perceptions of
technology
32. References
Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the Classroom: The Jigsaw Method, 3rd Edition (3rd ed.). Pinter & Martin Ltd.
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4),
471-500.
Correll, D. (2008). For human dissection needs, the body count is low - Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/26/nation/na-cadavers26
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Garg, A. X., Norman, G. R., Eva, K. W., Spero, L., & Sharan, S. (2002). Is there any real virtue of virtual reality?: The minor role of multiple orientations in learning
anatomy from computers. Academic Medicine, 77(10), S97-S99.
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69–110.
James, D. R. C., Purkayastha, S., Athanasiou, T., Shafiq, O., Paraskevas, P., & Darzi, A. (2004). Anatomy: The future teaching of undergraduates. Hospital Medicine,
65, 681–685.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38, 37–51.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (2007). The State of Cooperative Learning in Postsecondary and Professional Settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1),
15–29.
Keedy, A. W., Durack, J. C., Sandhu, P., Chen, E. M., O’Sullivan, P. S., & Breiman, R. S. (2011). Comparison of traditional methods with 3D computer models in the
instruction of hepatobiliary anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 4, 84-91.
Lindgren, R., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Spatial learning and computer simulations in science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 419–438.
Hisley, K, Anderson, L, Smith, S, Kavic, S, Tracy, J. (2008). Coupled physical and digital cadaver dissection followed by a visual test protocol provides insights into
the nature of anatomical knowledge and its evaluation. Anatomical Science Education, 1, 27-40.
Nicholson, D. T., Chalk, C., Funnell, W. R. J., & 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, 1081-1087.
Pear, R. (2009). Shortage of doctors an obstacle to Obama goals. Retrieved December 11, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html
Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 9(1), 7-30.
Saltarelli, A. Saltarelli, W. & Roseth, C. (2012). Under review, Journal of Educational Psychology.
Teo, T. (Ed.). (2011). Technology Acceptance in Education: Research and Issues. Sense Publishers.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model.
Information Systems Research, 11(4), 365.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., Davis, F. D., DeLone, W., McLean, E., Jarvis, C. B., et al. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a
unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y. L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct
experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25–42.
