User acceptance of a haptic interface for learning anatomy

Proceedings of the International Conference e-Learning 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 239-246

  Yeom, Soonja ^a   Choi Lundberg, Derek ^a   Fluck, Andrew ^a   Sale, Arthur ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Anatomy; Haptic interface; Higher education; Medical education; Technology enhanced learning

Indexed keywords

ANATOMICAL STRUCTURES; ANATOMY; DESIGN RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES; FORMATIVE EVALUATION; HIGHER EDUCATION; SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION; TASMANIA , AUSTRALIA; TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING;

E-LEARNING; HAPTIC INTERFACES; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MICE (COMPUTER PERIPHERALS); STUDENTS; THREE DIMENSIONAL;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 84886877888     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Bannan-Ritland, B., 2003. The Role of Design in Research: The Integrative Learning Design Framework. Educational Researcher, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 21-24.
2. Behringer, R. et al, 2007. Some Usability Issues of Augmented and Mixed Reality for e-Health Applications in the Medical Domain. HCI and Usability for Medicine and Health Care Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4799, pp. 255-266.
3. Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 77-101.
4. Chien, C. et al, 2010. An Interactive Augmented Reality System for Learning Anatomy Structure. International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists. Hong Kong, pp. 370-375.
5. Chuttur, M., 2009. Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, Developments and Future Directions. Sprouts: Working papers on Information Systems, Vol. 9, No. 37 http://sprouts. Aisnet. org/9-37
6. Collins, A. et al, 2004. Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 15-42.
7. Dieperink, B., 2006. The Effect of Retroactive Interference on Anatomical Learning Using a Virtual Learning Environment. Thesis, University of Twente. http://essay. utwente. nl/58744/
8. Dobson, J., 2009. Learning Style Preferences and Course Performance in an Undergraduate Physiology Class. Advancement in Physiology Education, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 308-314.
9. Dunser, A. et al, 2008. A Survey of Evaluation Techniques Used in Augmented Reality Studies. HITlab, Christchurch, NZ.
10. Liao, H. et al, 2010. 3-D Augmented Reality for MRI-Guided Surgery Using Integral Videography Autostereoscopic Image Overlay. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 57, No. 6, pp. 1476-1486.
11. Massie, T. and Salisbury, J., 1994. The PHANTOM Haptic Interface: A Device for Probing Virtual Objects. Proceedings of the American Society of Mechnical Engineers, Winter Annual Meeting. Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. https://alliance. seas. upenn. edu/~medesign/wiki/uploads/Courses/Massie94-DSC-Phantom.pdf
12. Mckenney, S., 2001. Computer-based Support for Science Education Materials Developers in Africa: Exploring Potentials. PhD Thesis, University of Twente.
13. Murphy, R. et al, 2004. Student Learning Preferences and Teaching Implications. Journal of Dental Education, Vol. 68, No. 8, pp. 859-66.
14. Nicholson, D. et al, 2006. Can Virtual Reality Improve Anatomy Education? A Randomised Controlled Study of a Computer Generated 3D Anatomical Ear Model. Medical Education, Vol. 40, No. 11, pp. 1081-1087.
15. Prensky, M., 2001. Digital Native, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 1-6.
16. Reeves, T., 2006. Design Research from a Technology Perspective. Routledge, London,England.
17. Reiser, R., 2001. A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part I: A History of Instructional Media. Educational Technology Research & Development, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 53-64.
18. Sakellariou, S. et al, 2009. Design and Implementation of Augmented Reality Environment for Complex Anatomy Training: Inguinal Canal Case Study. In: Shumaker, R. (ed. ) Virtual and Mixed Reality. Springer-Verlag. LNCS 5622, pp. 605-614.
19. San Diego, J. et al, 2012. Researching Haptics in Higher Education: The Complexity of Developing Haptics Virtual Learning Systems and Evaluating Its Impact on Students' Learning. Computers & Education, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 156-166.
20. Sankaranarayanan, G. et al, 2003. Role of Haptics in Teaching Structural Molecular Biology. Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. http://www. hitl. washington. edu/publications/r-2003-16/r-2003-16. pdf
21. Shams, L. and Seitz, A., 2008. Benefits of Multisensory Learning. Trends in Cognitive Science, Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 411-417.
22. Tan, S. et al, 2012. Role of a Computer-generated Three-dimensional Laryngeal Model in Anatomy Teaching for Advanced Learners. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, Vol. 126, No. 4, pp. 395-401.
23. Temkin, B. et al, 2006. An Interactive Three-dimensional Virtual Body Structures System for Anatomical Training Over the Internet. Clinical Anatomy, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 267-74.
24. Yeom, S., 2011. Augmented Reality for Learning Anatomy. Proceedings of ASCILITE. Hobart, Australia, pp. 1377-1383.
25. Yushkevich, P. et al, 2006. User-guided 3D Active Contour Segmentation of Anatomical Structures: Significantly Improved Efficiency and Reliability. NeuroImage, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 1116-1128.