抄録
[Purpose] The COVID-19 pandemic made it necessary to provide first -year nursing students with remote access to lectures on the structure and function of the human body (SFHB) via Google Classroom ( GCR). However, I had doubts about whether these remote lectures would be effective in teaching three-dimensional anatomy, and I considered introducing virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality ( AR) teaching materials. Furthermore, with the aim of creating a rubric for VR/AR teaching materials, I conducted preliminary effect measurements and reported on them. [Method] Seventy-seven students were asked to give their impressions in an anonymized questionnaire regarding the use of VR/AR teaching materials similar to the videos used in standard SFHB classes on line, and 38 responded (valid response rate, 49.4%). The evaluation was based on a comparison between the VR/AR lectures and face-to-face lectures using videos of the responses to: questionnaires about the teaching materials and to class improvement questionnaires ; the student feedback after each lecture ; and the level s attained in examinations. The rubric incorporated evaluation scales, evaluation viewpoints, and evaluation criteria (Table.1). The university is a member of the Compensation System for Public Transmission for Educational Purposes; this research was approved by my former university. [Results] 1. Similar to the evaluations of conventional videos, 86.8% of the evaluations of VR/AR teaching materials were reported by students as "very interesting” or "interesting. ” 2. When students were asked if they would like to use these materials in future lectures and preparations for national exams, 52.6% said they would, and 5.3% said the materials were unnecessary. 3. In the questionnaire, there were positive responses such as "because it is easy to understand" and "VR is easier to remember." In contrast, some students expressed opinions such as "Printed material is enough." The scores in the class improvement questionnaire were 2.95–3.00 points out of 3 for all items. In the rubric created from the above , the students were considered to have achieved "acceptance of VR/AR," "acquisition of knowledge," and "three-dimensional understanding," but "engagement" scored only 52.6%. Students found "filling in blank body maps" difficult. In addition, when I asked about the potential use of XR (extended reality) teaching materials for subjects other than SFHB, pathology was the most popular, followed by maternity, geriatrics, and physical assessment. [Discussion] Virtual space services known as the metaverse are expected to become even more widespread worldwide in the future . As stated in previous studies, in this survey, students were interested in VR/AR. But because the teaching materials used were not necessarily designed for nurses the "engagement" score was 52.6%. According to a survey by the Japanese Nursing Association, 9.2% of students are offered VR/AR in their lectures—a percentage that is still small. I therefore decided to use VR/AR teaching materials for nurs ing training to improve engagement . In this study, Ⅰconducted a rubric-based evaluation of VR/AR for the first time in the world.
https://ror.org/05aczzj13 
