Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 21 Georgian Scientists Vol. 6 Issue 2, 2024 https://doi.org/10.52340/gs.2024.06.02.03 : ? 1; 2; 3; 4 1 , , ; 2 ; 3 , ; 4 , . . : . . : 263 . , , (88,88%) (89,19%), . (76.31%) , , . , (58.59%), , (73.02%). , 2D , 3D . , 3D (66.66%), 3D (65.45%,), (64.07%), . : , , , Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 22 , , . , , . : , , , . , , (Computer-assisted learning (CAL)) . , .[1] „ “ : , , , , . , : ,[2] : ( VR) 3D Augmented Reality (AR).1 , : , , .[4,5] , , , , , .[6] , .[7] , , , , (VARK) .[8] , , [9] 155- 166- , , . , , 1 AR . Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 23 , . - .[10] - . , , .[11] , , . .[12] - . . , . . , , , . 2. 2.1. , , . , . 2.2. 2021-2022 . , 2021 2022 . . 2.3. , . , . , 5- [13] Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 24 - ) . ( . 1,2, 3,4,5). - . 2.5. , Google Forms. Microsoft Excel- . , , . 1 2.6. , - . , . Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 25 1 . 263 263 17-50 ( 22) 57 96 2 , 165 263 , 18,34% 20.20% 52.29 29,35% 50,45% 27.52 52,31% 29,35% 20.19 3. 3.1. , 263 42%. 263 79 , 47 , 27 , 64 , 21 25 . 98 , 82 . -196, 67 . 18 , 40 , 22 . 36- , 18 . 1. Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 26 3.2. - . 1 5 . - , , , - „ “- 71%. „ “- 55.3% „ “-36.9%. , , „ “ 53.1% „ “-35.4% . , , 1- 3- (1 3 ). , - , 2. 3.3. , . 1- 5 (1 5 ), # 3. , . , , . 3.4 , . 1- 5- (1 5 ). , - 58.16% - 51.3%. , , , 41,83% 32,67% . Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 27 3 4 , , 263 , , 3D 120 57 80 120 59 54 113 74 50 3D 110 50 72 2D 106 78 34 103 30 66 101 12 50 95 23 44 3D 80 24 41 74 7 37 . 263 / 139 84 136 48 78 60 ) 137 35 131 37 38 14 , 2 11 3 7 8 7 11 29 8 8 19 14 124 42 121 32 49 36 Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 28 , , , , 29.41%- ,, “, 39.21% , 31.37% - ,, “ ( , ). 3.5. , 1- 5- (1 5 ). , , : / - 76.31%; 3D / - 60.92%; 3D - 62%. 5 , , , 59.65% 6.46% 3d vr 4% 12,1% , 16.3% 1.5% , , . , . 4. , , . , , . Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 29 3.6. , , , 34.21% ), 40.13% ; , 58.55%- , . 69.53% , 71.05% , . , 73.02% , 74,17% , . , 72.36% , , . , , 47.36% , 25% . , 2D 3D ; , 58.66% 3D , 28.66% . , 52,02% , . , . 5. 3.7. - , 84,66% , , , , - . , 98.03%- , . 98,68%- , 52,02%- , . , - 78% , , . , 71.24%- , 3D , 3D . , 54,9%- 54,05% ; , 13.72% - . , 65.5% . 8%, 7.9% 12%- , - , , , . Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 30 3.8. 1- 5- (1- 5 - ) : , . 36% , , 22.66% , , 41.33% . 4. 263 , . . , 38 . , . -22 , ( -4 -5 ).[14] , . 176 (<24 ) 87 (25 ). , -3- , - 4- 1- , -2- . -3- -4- 1- , 2- . . , , . , , , . , , , , , . , , , , . , , , - .[15] , , .[16] , , , . Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 31 , . - , [17] - , , . , .[18] , , .[19] 40% , , . . , 3D . , (Augmented Reality (AR)) 3D , - .[20] , 2D , . , , - 2D , . , 3D , - 3D , , - . (2009) , , , „ “,[21] . , „ “ - ( ) - . , - . , , . ,[22] Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 32 . , - , , . , (Moodle, Blackboard Canvas) , , . , - , , . , - , .[23] 5. , , . , . , , - . , , . , , . , - . . , , . , . , , . , . , , . . , , Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 33 , . , , 3D , 3D . Lone M, Vagg T, Theocharopoulos A, Cryan JF, Mckenna JP, Downer EJ, et al. Development and assessment of a three dimensional tooth morphology quiz for dental students. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12(3):284e299. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ase.1815. Vaughan T. Multimedia: making it work. Tata McGraw-Hill Education; 2006. Clark J. Powerpoint and pedagogy: maintaining student interest in university lectures. Coll Teach. 2008;56(1):39e44. https:// doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.1.39-46. Akçay r M, Akçay r G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: a systematic review of the literature. Educ Res Rev. 2017;20:1e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.edurev.2016.11.002. De Wit-Zuurendonk LD, Oei SG. Serious gaming in women's health care. BJOG. 2011;118(3):17e21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1471-0528.2011.03176.x. El Tantawi M, Sadaf S, AlHumaid J. Using gamification to develop academic writing skills in dental undergraduate stu dents. Eur J Dent Educ. 2018;22(1):15e22. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/eje.12238. Vark LL. VARK a guide to learning styles. VARK; [acessed 2019 May 20]. http://vark-learn.com/. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1052713 GJMoiim Riva. Applications of virtual environments in medi cine. Meth info med. 2003;42(5):524e534. https://doi.org/ 10.1055/s-0038-1634379. 15. Kyaw BM, Saxena N, Posadzki P, Vseteckova J, Nikolaou CK, George PP, et al. Virtual reality for health professions education: systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health edu cation collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(1), e12959. https://doi.org/10.2196/12959 Henderson M, Selwyn N, Aston R. What works and why? Stu dent perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Stud High Educ. 2017;42(8):1567e1579. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946. (2023). 5 | - AhaSlides. [online] Available at: https://ahaslides.com/ka/blog/likert- scale-5-point/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2024].Spies C, Seale I, Botma Y. Adult learning: what nurse educators need to know about mature students. Curationis. 2015;38(2):1e7. https://doi.org/10.4102/curationis.v38i2.1494 Khatoon B, Hill KB, Walmsley AD. Dental students uptake of mobile technologies. BDJ. 2014;216:669. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.523 Maloney S, Chamberlain M, Morrison S, Kotsanas G, Keating JL, Ilic D. Health professional learner attitudes and use of digital learning resources. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(1):e7. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2094. Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 34 Marsh KR, Giffin BF, Lowrie Jr DJ. Medical student retention of embryonic development: impact of the dimensions added by multimedia tutorials. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(6):252e257. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ase.56. Lone M, McKenna JP, Cryan JF, Vagg T, Toulouse A, Downer EJ. Evaluation of an animation tool developed to supplement dental student study of the cranial nerves. Eur J Dent Educ. 2017;22(3):e427ee437. https://doi.org/10.1111/ eje.12321. Trelease RB. Diffusion of innovations: smartphones and wireless anatomy learning resources. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(6):233e239. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.58. Vega Garzon JC, Magrini ML, Galembeck E. Using augmented reality to teach and learn biochemistry. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2017;45(5):417e420. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21063. Prensky MH. Sapiens digital: from digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate J Online Educ. 2009;5(3). Kettanurak V, Ramamurthy K, Haseman WD. User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: an empirical investigation of the de gree of interactivity and learning styles. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2001;54(4):541e583. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0457. V. Kettanurak, K. Ramamurthy, WD. Haseman. „User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: an empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles“. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2001;54(4):541e583. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0457. Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 2, 2024 35 Multimedia in education: what do students think? Ketevan Kveselava1; Irakli Bochorishvili2; Liana Tedeshvili3; Levan Jikidze4 1Professor of Georgian Technical University, Chief Scientist of Scientific Research Center of David Agmashenebeli, National Defence Academy of Georgia, Academic Doctor of Informatics Engineering; 2Associate Professor of Technical University of Georgia, Doctor of Informatics; 3Associate Professor of Technical University of Georgia, candidate of technical sciences; 4Associate Professor of Technical University of Georgia, Academic Doctor of Informatics Engineering Abstract Multimedia is considered to be a cost-effective and practical learning tool. The research aims to study the attitude of students towards the use of various multimedia learning tools. Method: In order to collect data there was used an online questionnaire. Students participated in the study via email and data was collected over a six-month period. Results: A total of 263 students responded to the survey. The data shows that with the use of such devices as smartphones (88.88%) and laptops (89.19%), students have a positive experience of participating in the learning process. Students confidently use multimedia resources (76.31%) and have some knowledge of multimedia technologies as part of their learning experience. Students preferred traditional teaching methods over multimedia teaching methods (58.59%), but multimedia is considered to be an effective tool for hands-on learning (73.02%). Participants reported using e- learning tools more often 2D animations than other multimedia tools and 3D websites. Finally, students expressed interest in developing 3D animations (66.66%), using interactive 3D learning tools (65.45%), and developing simulators (64.07%) in order to better develop their future studies. Conclusion: The results of the study show that the participants recognized the important role of multimedia as a practical learning tool that can significantly complement and improve traditional teaching methods, although according to the results of the study, multimedia cannot replace them. Students expressed particular interest in the development of interactive tools, including the use of simulators for learning to supplement their knowledge and enhance the learning process. Key words: multimedia, traditional teaching method, interactive tools, multimedia-effective tool for practical learning.