Virtual microscopy as a teaching-learning tool for histology in a competency-based medical curriculum

Abstract

Background: Histology forms an important component of first-year medical education. Unfortunately, it is limited to the practical laboratory due to the need for a microscope and good quality slides. Virtual microscopy is a recent advancement, which uses computers as an alternative to microscopes. The aim of the study was to compare virtual microscopy (VM)-based practical classes with traditional microscopy (TM)-based practical classes for two cohorts of first-year medical students, by comparing learning achieved using two different test scores as well as a qualitative assessment of student and faculty perspectives regarding the feasibility and usefulness of VM.

Methods: Each cohort of students was divided into two equal batches and each batch underwent eight histology modules of which, four utilised traditional microscopes and four utilised virtual microscopes. Quantitative analysis was performed using a theory test (which assessed preparation, theory knowledge and understanding) as well as a spotter test (which assessed identification skills, reasoning, and recall). Qualitative analysis was performed using a structured questionnaire and focus group discussions.

Results: Modules using VM were better when compared with those using TM, showing statistically significant and better grades. Qualitative analysis performed, yielded important information as to how this technology can serve as a good adjunct to traditional histology classes in the competency-based curriculum by increasing student interest, enabling self-study, and reducing students dependence on the tutor.

Conclusions: VM forms a good adjunct as well as a standalone modality of learning to TM, as it improves accessibility to slides and promotes self-learning.

Keywords: Accessibility; Computer assisted learning; Independent learning; Labelling; Self learning.

Fig. 1

Screen shots of the virtual microscopy software where (A) shows the gallery view and (B) a sample slide with regions of interest (ROI's) marked.

Fig. 2

Analysis of the student responses (n = 160), Scale reliability coefficient as assessed by Cronbach's α - 0.8584.

Fig. 3

Analysis of the faculty responses (n = 11), Scale reliability coefficient as assessed by Cronbach's α - 0.8384.