Learner motivation and engagement (Kirkpatrick Level 1) were consistently high across technology-enhanced neuroanatomy interventions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across the reviewed RCTs, learner motivation and engagement at Kirkpatrick Level 1 were consistently reported as high for technology-enhanced neuroanatomy learning tools. → K Anniesmitha 2026

Evidence¶

K Anniesmitha 2026¶

K Anniesmitha, Rao K G Mohandas, Aithal P Ashwini, Bandekar Nikita N., Mandal Tatiyana, George Bincy M. (2026). Effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning in neuroanatomy education among health professionals - a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09764-w

q2 · i? · review · r3

Narrative synthesis of the review's nine included RCTs, appraised via the Kirkpatrick model. The review reports that VR tools, examined in four studies, "consistently increased learner motivation (L1)". No pooled effect size is printed.

"Virtual reality (VR) tools, which were examined in four studies, consistently increased learner motivation (L1) and improved learning outcomes in most cases."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• VR module matched a textbook on anatomy knowledge at pre-, post- and retention testing while being rated more engaging and motivating (Stepan et al.) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• An AR application produced smaller test-score gains than cross-section study and higher extraneous cognitive load (Henssen et al.) — reports the opposite
• Improvements in objective knowledge outcomes (Kirkpatrick Level 2) from technology-enhanced learning were inconsistent across neuroanatomy interventions — related
• 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
• Mind maps and concept maps significantly enhance knowledge retention, recall, and assessment performance in four of six RCTs among preclinical medical students — related