A usability study of users' perceptions toward a multimedia computer-assisted learning tool for neuroanatomy

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 175-183

  Gould, Douglas J ^a   Terrell, Mark A ^b   Fleming, Jo ^c  

^a THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b LAKE ERIE COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE   (United States)

^c ORCCA Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer assisted instruction; E learning; Multimedia; Neuroanatomy; Usability study

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER LITERACY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; FACULTY; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LEARNING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ANATOMIC; MULTIMEDIA; NEUROANATOMY; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; STUDENTS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 58449094316     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.36     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bachman MW, Lua MJ, Clay DJ, Rudney JD. 1998. Comparing traditional lecture vs. computer-based instruction for oral anatomy. J Dent Educ 62:587-591.
2. Berner ES, Boulware DW. 1996. Medical informatics for medical students: Not just because it's there. Med Educ Online 1:1-5.
3. Cardenas K. 1998. Technology in Today's Classroom: It Slices and It Dices, But Does It Serve Us Well? Academe 84:27-29.
4. Cheng WC, Thompson CB, Smith JA, Pugh L, Stanley C. 2003. A web-based breastfeeding education program. J Perinat Educ 12:29-41.
5. Chin JP, Diehl VA, Norman KL. 1988. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: Soloway E, Frye D, Sheppard SB (Editors). CHI 1988 Conference Proceedings: Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. p. 213-218.
6. Chou C. 2003. Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. Br J Educ Technol 34:265-279.
7. Drake RL, Lowrie DJ Jr, Prewitt CM. 2002. Survey of gross anatomy, microscopic anatomy, neuroscience, and embryology courses in medical school curricula in the United States. Anat Rec 269:118-122.
8. Fleming DE, Mauriello SM, McKaig RG, Ludlow JB. 2003. A comparison of slide/audiotape and web-based instructional formats for teaching normal intraoral radiographic anatomy. J Dent Hyg 77:27-35.
9. Foreman KB, Morton DA, Musolino GM, Albertine KH. 2005. Design and utility of a web-based computer-assisted instructional tool for neuroanatomy self-study and review for physical and occupational therapy graduate students. Anat Rec 285B:26-31.
10. Gorman PJ, Meier AH, Krummel TM. 2000. Computer-assisted training and learning in surgery. Comput Aided Surg 5:120-130.
11. Granger NA, Calleson DC, Henson OW, Juliano E, Wineski L, McDaniel MD, Burgoon JM. 2006. Use of web-based materials to enhance anatomy instruction in the health sciences. Anat Rec 289B:121-127.
12. Huk T, Steinke M, Floto C. 2003. Computer animations as learning objects: What is an ef.cient instructional design, and for whom? In: Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference; Algarve, Portugal; 2003 Nov 5-8; p 1187-1190. International Association for Development of the Information Society: Lisbon, Portugal.
13. Jewett BS, Holsinger C, Kuppersmith RB, Buenting JE. 1998. Computer-based physician education. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 31:301-307.
14. Koohang AA. 1989. A study of attitudes toward computers: Anxiety, confidence, liking, and perception of usefulness. J Res Comput Educ 22:137-150.
15. Koohang A. 2004a. A study of users' perceptions toward e-learning courseware usability. Int J e-Learn 3:10-17.
16. Koohang A. 2004b. Expanding the concept of usability. Informing Sci J 7:129-142. URL: http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol7/v7p129-141-002.pdf [accessed 5 June 2008].
17. Koohang A. 2004c. The development and validation of an instrument for assessing users' views about the usability of a digital library. Issues Informing Sci Inf Technol 1:55-63. URL: http://docs.ksu.edu.sa/PDF/ Articles07/Article070105.pdf [accessed 5 June 2008].
18. Koohang A, Weiss E. 2003. Effect of prior experience with the internet on graduate students' perception toward courseware usability and web-based distance learning instruction: An exploratory study in a hybrid instruction environment. Issues Info Syst 4:535-542.
19. Koohang A, du Plessis J. 2004. Architecting usability properties in the e-learning instructional design process. Int J e-Learn 3:38-44.
20. Koohang A, Ondracek J. 2005. Users' views about the usability of digital libraries. Br J Educ Technol 36:407-423.
21. Kulik C-LC, Kulik JA, Shwalb BJ. 1994. The effectiveness of computer applications: A meta-analysis. J Res Comput Educ 27:48-61.
22. Lieberman G, Abramson R, Volkan K, McArdle PJ. 2002. Tutor versus computer: A prospective comparison of interactive tutorial and computer-assisted instruction in radiology education. Acad Radiol 9:40-49.
23. Lilienfield LS, Broering NC. 1994. Computers as teachers: Learning from animations. Adv Physiol Educ 11:47-54.
24. Lynch TG, Steele DJ, Johnson Palensky JE, Lacy NL, Duffy SW. 2001. Learning preferences, computer attitudes, and test performance with computer-aided instruction. Am J Surg 181:368-371.
25. Maag M. 2004. The effectiveness of an interactive learning tool on nursing students' math knowledge and self-efficacy. Comput Inf Nurs 22:26-33.
26. Mayer RE, Anderson RB. 1992. The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 84:444-452.
27. McCuskey RS, Carmichael SW, Kirch DG. 2005. The importance of anatomy in the health professions education and the shortage of qualified instructors. Acad Med 80:349-351.
28. McNulty JA, Halama J, Dauzvardis MF, Espiritu B. 2000. Evaluation of web-based computer-aided instruction in a basic science course. Acad Med 75:59-65.
29. McNulty JA, Espiritu B, Halsey M, Mendez M. 2006. Personality preference influences medical student use of specific computer-aided instruction (CAI). BMC Med Educ 6:7.
30. Ong CS, Lai JY. 2004. Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Comput Hum Behav 22:816-829.
31. Reidenberg JS, Laitman JT. 2002. The new face of gross anatomy. Anat Rec 269B:81-88.
32. Reisman S. 1994. Multimedia Computing: Preparing for the 21st Century. 1st Ed. Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group Publishing. 608 p.
33. Robbins SP. 2001. Organizational Behavior. 9th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 704 p.
34. Seabra D, Srougi M, Baptista R, Nesrallah LJ, Ortiz V, Sigulem D. 2004. Computer aided learning versus standard lecture for undergraduate education in urology. J Urol 171:1220-1222.
35. Shomaker TS, Ricks DJ, Hale DC. 2002. A prospective, randomized controlled study of computer-assisted learning in parasitology. Acad Med 77:446-449.
36. Terrell M. 2006. Anatomy of learning: Instructional design principles for the anatomical sciences. Anat Rec 289B:252-260.
37. Thatcher JD. 2006. Computer animation and improved student comprehension of basic science concepts. J Am Osteopath Assoc 106:9-14.
38. Trelease RB, Rosset A. 2008. Transforming clinical imaging data for virtual reality learning objects. Anat Sci Educ 1:50-55.
39. Wang HC, Chang CY, Li TY. 2007. The comparative efficacy of 2D- versus 3D-based media design for in.uencing spatial visualization skills. Comput Hum Behav 23:1943-1957.
40. Waugh RA, Mayer JW, Ewy GA, Felner JM, Issenberg BS, Gessner IH, Rich S, Sajid AW, Safford RE. 1995. Multimedia computer-assisted instruction in cardiology. Arch Intern Med 155:197-203.