Scholarlink

Background <p>Immersive technologies are increasingly explored in medical education to supplement traditional teaching methods. Instructional videos provide consistent demonstrations but often lack opportunities for interaction and reflection. We compared video-only instruction, video instruction combined with facilitated peer discussion, and a collaborative 360° virtual reality (VR) co-viewing environment for teaching abdominal examination to first-semester medical students.</p> Methods <p>In this three-arm comparative pilot study (non-randomized), 30 students were allocated to video alone (<i>n</i> = 11), video plus discussion (<i>n</i> = 10), or collaborative 360° VR (<i>n</i> = 9). All groups viewed the same professionally produced 10-minute instructional video. The discussion group then engaged in a 20-minute guided conversation; VR participants co-viewed the same video in a shared 360° environment with teleportation between camera angles and annotation tools. Performance was assessed using a 16-item checklist scored by blinded examiners (0–16 points). Learner perceptions were measured using the UEQ-S (8 items; six scales) plus open-ended questions. Between-group differences in checklist scores were tested with two-sided Mann–Whitney U tests.</p> Results <p>Median checklist scores were 14.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 13.0–15.0) for video, 16.0 (IQR 14.5–16.0) for video + discussion, and 12.0 (IQR 12.0–13.0) for VR. Pairwise Mann–Whitney tests showed that video + discussion outperformed VR (U = 82.5, <i>p</i> = 0.0019) and video outperformed VR (U = 79.5, <i>p</i> = 0.0228), while video did not differ significantly from video + discussion (U = 32.0, <i>p</i> = 0.101). Questionnaires indicated high satisfaction with video and discussion. VR participants reported strong engagement and motivation but lower ratings for navigation and self-perceived preparedness.</p> Conclusion <p>Supplementing instructional videos with structured peer discussion produced the highest immediate competency, supporting social-constructivist approaches to skills training. Collaborative VR did not improve short-term performance but enhanced engagement and may serve as an adjunct when combined with clear learning objectives and user training. Larger studies are needed to explore long-term retention and optimize integration of immersive technologies into medical curricula.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluating the impact of video-only, video with group discussion, and collaborative 360VR on abdominal examination training for first-semester medical students and medicine with industrial specialization

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月6日

查看全文
  • Rameshnath Krishnasamy,
  • Malene Plejdrup Hansen,
  • Louise Thomsen Schmidt Arenholt,
  • Jacob Gorm Davidsen

摘要

Background

Immersive technologies are increasingly explored in medical education to supplement traditional teaching methods. Instructional videos provide consistent demonstrations but often lack opportunities for interaction and reflection. We compared video-only instruction, video instruction combined with facilitated peer discussion, and a collaborative 360° virtual reality (VR) co-viewing environment for teaching abdominal examination to first-semester medical students.

Methods

In this three-arm comparative pilot study (non-randomized), 30 students were allocated to video alone (n = 11), video plus discussion (n = 10), or collaborative 360° VR (n = 9). All groups viewed the same professionally produced 10-minute instructional video. The discussion group then engaged in a 20-minute guided conversation; VR participants co-viewed the same video in a shared 360° environment with teleportation between camera angles and annotation tools. Performance was assessed using a 16-item checklist scored by blinded examiners (0–16 points). Learner perceptions were measured using the UEQ-S (8 items; six scales) plus open-ended questions. Between-group differences in checklist scores were tested with two-sided Mann–Whitney U tests.

Results

Median checklist scores were 14.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 13.0–15.0) for video, 16.0 (IQR 14.5–16.0) for video + discussion, and 12.0 (IQR 12.0–13.0) for VR. Pairwise Mann–Whitney tests showed that video + discussion outperformed VR (U = 82.5, p = 0.0019) and video outperformed VR (U = 79.5, p = 0.0228), while video did not differ significantly from video + discussion (U = 32.0, p = 0.101). Questionnaires indicated high satisfaction with video and discussion. VR participants reported strong engagement and motivation but lower ratings for navigation and self-perceived preparedness.

Conclusion

Supplementing instructional videos with structured peer discussion produced the highest immediate competency, supporting social-constructivist approaches to skills training. Collaborative VR did not improve short-term performance but enhanced engagement and may serve as an adjunct when combined with clear learning objectives and user training. Larger studies are needed to explore long-term retention and optimize integration of immersive technologies into medical curricula.