Comparison of computer-based and paper-based imagery strategies in learning anatomy

Clinical Anatomy

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 457-464

  Khalil, Mohammed K ^a   Johnson, T E ^a   Lamar, C H ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomy education; Computer based learning; Imagery strategy

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COMPARATIVE ANATOMY; COMPUTER; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGERY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TWO TAILED PAIRED T TEST; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

ANATOMY, COMPARATIVE; ANATOMY, VETERINARY; ANIMALS; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; DOGS; EDUCATION, VETERINARY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PROGRAM EVALUATION; STUDENTS, HEALTH OCCUPATIONS;

EID: 24644441165     PISSN: 08973806     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ca.20158     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anglin GJ, Vaez H, Cunningham KL. 2004. Visual message design and learning: The role of static and animated graphics. In: Jonassen DH, editor. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. 2nd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p 865-916.
2. Bagui S. 1998. Reasons for increased learning using multimedia. JEMH 7:3-18.
3. Baker R, Dwyer F. 2000. A meta-analytic assessment of the effect of visualized instruction. Int J Instr Media 27:417-426.
4. Barco T, Gilbertson B, Coultas J. 2000. Web-delivery of anatomy video clips using a CD-ROM. Anat Rec (New Anat) 261:78-82.
5. Berry DC, Banbury S, Henry L. 1997. Transfer across form and modality in implicit and explicit memory. Q J Exp Psychol 50:1-24.
6. Cairncross S, Mannion M. 2001. Interactive multimedia and learning: realizing the benefits. Innov Educ Teach Inter 38:156-164.
7. Carmichael SW, Pawlina W. 2000. Animated PowerPoint as a tool to teach anatomy. Anat Rec (New Anat) 261:83-88.
8. Collins TJ, Given RL, Hulsebosch CE, Miller BT. 1994. Status of gross anatomy in the U. S. and Canada: dilemma for the 21st century. Clin Anat 7:275-296.
9. Dwyer FM, Lamberski RJ. 1983. A review of the research on the effects of the use of color in the teaching-learning process. Int J Instr Media 10:303-327.
10. Ertmer PA, Newby TJ. 1996. The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instr Sci 24:1-24.
11. Evans HE. 1993. Miller's anatomy of the dog. 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, London, Toronto, Montreal, Sydney, Tokyo: W.B. Saunders Company.
12. Gage NL, Berliner DC. 1998. Educational Psychology. 6th Ed. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
13. Gyselinck V, Tardieu H. 1999. The role of illustration in text comprehension: what, when, for whom, and why? In: Goldman SR, Van Oostendorp H, editors. The construction of mental representation during reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p 195-218.
14. Hallgren RC, Parkhurst PE, Monson CL, Crewe NM. 2002. An interactive, web-based tool for learning anatomic landmarks. Acad Med 77:263-265.
15. Jones NA, Olafson RP, Sutin J. 1978. Evaluation of a gross anatomy program without dissection. J Med Educ 53:198-205.
16. Khadra MH, Guinea AI, Hill DA. 1995. The acceptance of computer-assisted learning by medical students. Aust N Z J Surg 65:610-612.
17. Khalil MK, Lamar CH, Johnson TE. 2005. Using computer-based interactive imagery strategies for designing instructional anatomy programs. Clin Anat 18:68-76.
18. Kim S, Brinkley JF, Rosse C. 2003. Profile of on-line anatomy information resources: Design and instructional implications. Clin Anat 16:55-71.
19. Kinjo H, Snodgrass JG. 2000. Is there a picture superiority effect in perceptual implicit tasks? Eur J Cog Psychol 12: 145-164.
20. Lamperti A, Sodicoff M. 1997. Computer-based neuroanatomy laboratory for medical students. Anat Rec 249:422-428.
21. Levine MG, Stempak J, Conyers G, Walters JA. 1999. Implementing and integrating computer-based activities into a problem-based gross anatomy curriculum. Clin Anat 12: 191-198.
22. Paalman MH. 2000. New frontiers in anatomy education. Anat Rec (New Anat) 261:47.
23. Paivio A. 1979. Imagery and verbal processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Predavec M. 2001. Evaluation of E-Rat, a computer-based rat dissection, in terms of student learning outcomes. J Biol Educ 35:75-80.
25. Reidenberg JS, Laitman JT. 2002. The new face of gross anatomy. Anat Rec (New Anat) 269:81-88.
26. Santer DM, Michaelsen VE, Erkonen WE, Winter RJ, Woodhead JC, Gilmer JS, D'Alessandro MP, Galvin JR. 1995. A comparison of educational interventions: multimedia textbook, standard lecture, and printed textbook. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 149:297-302.
27. Seel NM, Strittmatter P. 1989. Presentation of information by media and its effect on mental models. In: Mandl H, Levin JR, editors. Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures. Advances in psychology, 58. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publisher, p 37-57.
28. Trelease RB. 2002. Anatomical informatics: Millennial perspectives on a newer frontier. Anat Rec (New Anat) 269: 224-235.
29. Venuti JM, Imielinska C, Molholt P. 2004. New views of male pelvic anatomy: Role of computer-generated 3D images. Clin Anat 17:261-271.
30. Weidenmann B, Paechter M, Hartmannsgruber K. 1999. Structuring and sequencing of complex text-picture combinations. Eur J Psychol Educ 14:185-202.
31. West CK, Farmer JA, Wolff PM. 1991. Instructional design implications from cognitive science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32. Worley GM, Moore DM. 2001. The effects of highlight color on immediate recall on subjects of different cognitive styles. Int J Instr Media 28:169-180.