Augmented reality increased student engagement but not test performance in anatomical learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Augmented reality increased engagement/interest/motivation but showed no statistical difference in objective test results (MCQ exam and practical). → Owolabi Joshua O. 2025

Evidence¶

Owolabi Joshua O. 2025¶

Owolabi Joshua O., Gardner Katresa, Agboola Rasheed, Yesudas Rekha R., Shaw Jennifer H. (2025). Use of simulation for teaching biomedical sciences to undergraduate medical students- a scoping review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07819-y

q2 · i? · review · r2

Pilot study of 62 second-year Italian medical students comparing AR+3D printing model (AEducaAR) versus traditional atlas learning for topographical learning; "no statistical (t test, unpaired) difference in objective test results" but increased engagement on Likert survey (43/62 response rate). No effect size printed.

"There was no statistical (t test, unpaired) difference in objective test results (MCQ exam and practical), however increased engagement/interest/motivation indicated on Likert scale feedback survey/questionnaire (43/62 response rate)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Review syntheses: VR/AR most often improved academic achievement and motivation, but sometimes performed no better than conventional technologies — a broader claim this one bears on
• AR and 2D methods boosted knowledge similarly, but the 3D AR method drew greater satisfaction and student preference (Lopez et al.) — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)