Selecting AR Anatomy Apps to Highlight

To be able to comment on the applicability of AR anatomy apps for grade 12 biology & physiology classes, we needed to have some first-hand experience. Our team decided to venture out and identify four apps that we could test drive and profile. In order to be considered for our analysis, the apps needed to meet the following mandatory requirements: 

 

• AR capabilities specific for anatomy: The apps we selected needed to have commercially available AR capabilities built into the app. 

 

• Intended audience:  The intended audience for the app needed to include grade 12 students studying anatomy or physiology, as well as their teachers. The recommended audience for the app could be much broader than grade 12 - it just needed to be appropriate for the student body we were focusing on. 

 

• Reviews of the app: To expedite our analysis, we selected apps that generally had positive online user reviews. We used a variety of sources to gather feedback data on each app, including: educational technology sites that vet the latest innovations in edtech, such as Common Sense Media and the Educational App Store; case studies or endorsements in news articles published in reputable sources; and user reviews on the app store.

 

• Device compatibility: Not all apps are available on all devices! Some apps were available only on iTunes, on the latest operating system, or on newer mobile devices. Further, as we discovered, some apps were available on multiple platforms and operating systems, but their AR functionality was limited to only recent devices. Not only did this provide parameters around our own app selection - this criteria could also limit educators trying to use AR in the classroom.  ***THIS is the most up-to-date list available of which devices (both iOS and Android) will run AR apps.  You'll need one of these devices to be able to explore the world of AR.***

 

Apps that met the above criteria became part of our consideration set. We then wanted to select apps that were along a continuum of the following criteria: 

 

• Complexity of app: We believed it was important to test apps that would appeal to a range of teachers - from the risk averse to the technology innovators. We wanted to find two Beginner apps geared to educators new to AR - they needed to have simple functionality and an intuitive user interface. The other two Advanced apps searched for needed to have more robust offerings in terms of both scope of content and AR capabilities, to cater to the more tech-savvy educator.

 

• Cost: We wanted to compare and contrast the quality of the user experience between free and paid apps. It was also important that we had freely accessible apps that our colleagues could download and pilot themselves. As such, we selected two free apps and two that we paid for.