Interactive virtual human (IVH) simulations offer a novel method for training skills involving person-to-person interactions. This article examines the effectiveness of an IVH simulation for teaching medical students to assess rare cranial nerve abnormalities in both individual and small-group learning contexts. Individual (n = 26) and small-group (n = 30) interaction with the IVH system was manipulated to examine the influence on learning, learner engagement, perceived cognitive demands of the learning task, and instructional efficiency. Results suggested the IVH activity was an equally effective and engaging instructional tool in both learning structures, despite learners in the group learning contexts having to share hands-on access to the simulation interface. Participants in both conditions demonstrated a significant increase in declarative knowledge post-training. Operation of the IVH simulation technology imposed moderate cognitive demand but did not exceed the demands of the task content or appear to impede learning.
References
[1]
Babu SV, Suma E, Hodges LF, Barnes T. 2011. Learning cultural conversational protocols with immersive interactive virtual humans. The International Journal of Virtual Reality 10(4):25-35
[2]
Baddeley A. 1997. Human memory: theory and practice. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
[3]
Beers PJ, Boshuizen HPA, Kirschner PA, Gijselaers W, Westendorp J. 2008. Cognitive load measurements and simulated recall interview for studying the effects of information and communications technology. Educational Technology Research and Development 56:309-328
[4]
Camacho J. 2009. Next generation JKO. Military Training Technology, 14, September–October. Available at http://www.military-training-technology.com/mt2-archives/197-mt2-2009-volume-14-issue-5-/1925-next-generation-jko.html (accessed 30 November 2012)
[5]
Camburn CP, Gunther-Mohr C, Lessler JT. 1999. Developing new models of interviewer training. In: Proceedings of the international conference on survey nonresponse. Portland, OR.
[6]
Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola M. 2010. Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine 85:1589-1602
[7]
Culhane E, Reid P, Crepeau LJ, McDonald D. 2012. Beyond frontiers: the critical role of cross-cultural competence in the military. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 50:30-37
[8]
Department of the Army. 2006. Police intelligence operations. Technical Report FM 3-19.50, Department of the Army. Appendix D: tactical questioning.
[9]
Ellaway RH, Kneebone R, Lachapelle K, Topps D. 2009. Practica continua: connecting and combining simulation modalities for integrated teaching, learning and assessment. Medical Teacher 31:725-731
Hill RW, Gratch J, Marsella S, Rickel J, Swartout W, Traum D. 2003. Virtual humans in the mission rehearsal exercise system. Kynstlich Intelligenz 17(4):32-38
[12]
Hubal RC, Frank GA. 2001. Interactive training applications using responsive virtual human technology. In: The interservice/industry training, simulation & education conference (I/ITSEC) (Vol. 2001, No.-1). National Training Systems Association.
[13]
Johnson DW, Johnson RT. 2009. An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher 38:365-379
[14]
Kenny P, Hartholt A, Gratch J, Swartout W, Traum D, Marsella S, Piepol D. 2007. Building interactive virtual humans for training environments. In: The interservice/industry training, simulation & education conference (I/ITSEC) (Vol. 2007, No. -1). National Training Systems Association. Paper No. 7105
[15]
Kenny P, Parsons T, Rizzo A. 2009. Human computer interaction in virtual standardized patient systems. In: Jacko JA, ed. Human–computer interaction: interacting in various application domains. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 514-523
[16]
Kenny P, Parsons T, Gratch J, Rizzo A. 2009. Evaluation of novice and expert interpersonal interaction skills with a virtual patient. Intelligent Virtual Agents 5773:511-512
[17]
Khalil MK, Paas F, Johnson TE, Payer AF. 2005. Design of interactive and dynamic anatomical visualizations: the implication of cognitive load theory. The Anatomical Record (Part B New Anat.) 286B:14-20
[18]
Klein JD, Doran MS. 1999. Implementing individual and small group learning structures with a computer simulation. Educational Technology Research & Development 47:97-110
[19]
Kraiger K. 2008. Transforming our models of learning and development: web-based instruction as an enabler of third-generation instruction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice 1:454-467
[20]
Lou Y, Abrami PC, d’Apollonia S. 2001. Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 71:449-521
[21]
Nieder GL, Parmelee DX, Stolfi A, Hudes PD. 2005. Team-based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clinical Anatomy 18:56-63
[22]
Noe RA, Tews MJ, McConnell Dachner A. 2010. Learner engagement: a new perspective for enhancing our understanding of learner motivation and workplace learning. The Academy of Management Annals 4:279-315
[23]
Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H, Van Gerven PWM. 2003. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist 38:63-71
[24]
Paas F, van Merrinboer JJG. 1993. The efficiency of instructional conditions: an approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors 35:737-743
[25]
Parsons T, Kenny P, Ntuen CA, Pataki CS, Pato M, Rizzo AA, St-George C, Sugar J. 2008. Objective structured clinical interview training using a virtual human patient. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 132:357-362
[26]
Rickel J, Marsella S, Gratch J, Hill R, Traum D, Swartout W. 2002. Toward a new generation of virtual humans for interactive experiences. Intelligent Systems, IEEE 17(4):32-38
[27]
Schlecter TM. 1990. The relative instructional efficiency of small group computer-based training. Journal of Educational Computing Research 6:329-341
[28]
Slavin RE. 1996. Research for the future: research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21:43-69
[29]
Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS. 1999. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 69:21-51
[30]
Stevens A, Hernandez J, Johnsen K, Dickerson R, Raij A, Harrison C, DiPietro M, Allen B, Ferdig R, Foti S, Jackson J, Shin M, Cendan J, Watson R, Duerson M, Lok B, Cohen M, Wagner P, Lind S. 2006. The use of virtual patients to teach medical students history taking and communication skills. The American Journal of Surgery 191:806-811
[31]
Swartout W, Gratch J, Hill R, Hovy E, Marsella S, Rickel J, Traum D. 2006. Toward virtual humans. AI Magazine 27(2):96-108
[32]
Sweller J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12:257-285
[33]
Sweller J, Chandler P. 1991. Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognitive Instruction 8:351-362
[34]
Sweller J, Chandler P. 1994. Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition Instruction 12:185-233
[35]
Tullis JG, Benjamin AS. 2011. On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language 64:109-118
[36]
van Merrinboer JJG, Sweller J. 2005. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review 17:147-177
[37]
Ziv A, Small SD, Wolpe PR. 2000. Patient safety and simulation-based medical education. Medical Teacher 22(5):489-495
