Premium
E‐Learning: Effective or Defective? The Impact of Commercial E‐Learning Tools on Learner Cognitive Load and Anatomy Instruction
Author(s) -
Van Nuland Sonya,
Rogers Kem
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.29.1_supplement.550.17
Subject(s) - task (project management) , cognitive load , test (biology) , cognition , stroop effect , popularity , population , psychology , class (philosophy) , cognitive psychology , computer science , medicine , artificial intelligence , social psychology , neuroscience , biology , paleontology , management , environmental health , economics
The rising popularity of commercial anatomy e‐learning tools has occurred, in part, due to increasing class sizes and a reduction in anatomy laboratory hours at many educational institutions. Using a dual‐task methodology, we examined two anatomical e‐learning tools (Netters 3D and ADAM Interactive) to determine the effect of their design on cognitive load. We hypothesize that longer reaction times on a modified Stroop secondary task would indicate a higher cognitive load imposed by the primary task (Anatomy Software), which would interfere with learning. Learners (n=7) were assessed using a baseline anatomy knowledge test, secondary task response times, and an anatomy knowledge post‐test. Results showed that when students use ADAM, they have significantly longer reaction times on the secondary task than when they use Netters (1525ms±433 and 1060ms±56 respectively, p=0.039). Ironically, students appeared to perform better on post‐test measures when using ADAM than when using Netters (3.17±1.83 and 1.33±1.21 respectively, p=0.130). These results suggest that ADAM, which is a simplistic 2‐dimensional e‐learning tool, sustains learner attention and facilitates learning more effectively than Netters 3D, a 3‐dimensional interactive e‐learning platform. A study is underway with 50 participants to determine if the trends seen in the initial experiment are consistent within a larger student population.