Effect of an Audience Response System on Resident Learning and Retention of Lecture Material

Rubio, Eva I.; Bassignani, Matthew J.; White, Marney A.; Brant, William E.

doi:10.2214/ajr.07.3038

Cited by 97 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, 21 studies met inclusion criteria for this review. Among the included studies, nine were RCTs (Miller et al 2003;Palmer et al 2005;Pradhan et al 2005;Duggan et al 2007;Plant 2007;Elashvili et al 2008;Rubio et al 2008;Liu et al 2010;Moser et al 2010), two were non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs) (Schackow et al 2004;Patterson et al 2010), two were prospective cohort studies (O'Brien et al 2006;Stein et al 2006) and eight were non-concurrent cohort studies (Halloran 1995;Slain et al 2004;Barbour 2008;Berry 2009;Cain et al 2009;Doucet et al 2009;Lymn & Mostyn 2009;Grimes et al 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen of the 21 studies were concerned with undergraduate health professions education including four studies in nursing (Halloran 1995;Stein et al 2006;Berry 2009;Patterson et al 2010), three studies in medicine (Palmer et al 2005;Duggan et al 2007;Moser et al 2010), two studies in dentistry (Barbour 2008;Elashvili et al 2008), two studies in pharmacy (Cain et al 2009;Liu et al 2010) and two studies in veterinary medicine (Plant 2007;Doucet et al 2009). Three studies involved medical residents (Palmer et al 2005;Pradhan et al 2005;Rubio et al 2008). Three studies involved graduate trainees, two in pharmacy (Slain et al 2004;Moser et al 2010) and the other in nursing (Grimes et al 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Audience response systems (ARS) represent one approach to make classroom learning more active. Although ARS may have pedagogical value, their impact is still unclear. This systematic review aims to examine the effect of ARS on learning outcomes in health professions education. Methods: After a comprehensive literature search, two reviewers completed title screening, full-text review and quality assessment of comparative studies in health professions education. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis of immediate and longer term knowledge scores were conducted. Results: Twenty-one of 1013 titles were included. Most studies evaluated ARS in lectures (20 studies) and in undergraduates (14 studies). Fourteen studies reported statistically significant improvement in knowledge scores with ARS. Meta-analysis showed greater differences with non-randomised study design. Qualitative synthesis showed greater differences with non-interactive teaching comparators and in postgraduates. Six of 21 studies reported student reaction; 5 favoured ARS while 1 had mixed results. Conclusion: This review provides some evidence to suggest the effectiveness of ARS in improving learning outcomes. These findings are more striking when ARS teaching is compared to non-interactive sessions and when non-randomised study designs are used. This review highlights the importance of having high quality studies with balanced comparators available to those making curricular decisions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6,7 Since their inception, ARSs have been adopted as an interactive tool in a variety of health professions courses and disciplines including pharmacy, medicine, dentistry, and nursing. 4,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] An ARS allows a professor to pose a question to the class, typically in the multiple-choice format seen on many board examinations, and then the students respond by pressing the button on their response cards or "clickers" that corresponds to what they believe is the correct answer. At the end of a specified amount of time or at the instructor's discretion, the professor uses ARS software to display the frequency of responses for the class' aggregated answers to a given question.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent Use of an Audience Response System at a Multi-Campus College of Pharmacy

Clauson

Alkhateeb

Singh-Franco

2012

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To assess the impact of an audience response system (ARS) on student engagement at a multi-campus college of pharmacy.Methods. An online questionnaire was designed and administered to measure the impact of an ARS on student engagement, distance education, projected use, and satisfaction among pharmacy students for a course delivered across 3 sites via synchronous video transmission.Results. Students reported that use of the ARS made it easier to participate (85.3%) and helped them to focus (75.7%) in classes when the lecturer was physically at a different site. They also valued that the ARS allowed them to respond anonymously (93.2%). A minority of students indicated that use of the ARS was distracting (11.8%). Conclusions. Implementation of an ARS was associated with positive student perceptions of engagement and may improve feelings of connectedness among students at schools with multiple sites. Use of ARSs could also represent a cognitive intercession strategy to help reduce communication apprehension.

show abstract

“…Future work will target the extent to which improvements in the core lectures can be sustained, built on, and transferred to other settings, such as bedside teaching, and whether active learning strategies (such as the use of an audience response system) have a positive effect on knowledge retention, as has been found in other studies. 18,19 Our study has several limitations. They include a singleprogram intervention, limiting generalizability; voluntary workshop participation, which may result in selection bias; faculty behaviors that may be influenced by the presence of observers (a Hawthorne effect) 20 ; and observers who were not blinded to the purpose of the study, introducing the potential for observer bias.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Evaluation of a Faculty Development Program Aimed at Increasing Residents' Active Learning in Lectures

Desselle¹,

English²,

Hescock³

et al. 2012

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Active engagement in the learning process is important to enhance learners' knowledge acquisition and retention and the development of their thinking skills. This study evaluated whether a 1-hour faculty development workshop increased the use of active teaching strategies and enhanced residents' active learning and thinking. Methods Faculty teaching in a pediatrics residency participated in a 1-hour workshop (intervention) approximately 1 month before a scheduled lecture. Participants' responses to a preworkshop/postworkshop questionnaire targeted self-efficacy (confidence) for facilitating active learning and thinking and providing feedback about workshop quality. Trained observers assessed each lecture (3-month baseline phase and 3-month intervention phase) using an 8-item scale for use of active learning strategies and a 7-item scale for residents' engagement in active learning. Observers also assessed lecturer-resident interactions and the extent to which residents were asked to justify their answers. Results Responses to the workshop questionnaire (n = 32/34; 94%) demonstrated effectiveness and increased confidence. Faculty in the intervention phase demonstrated increased use of interactive teaching strategies for 6 items, with 5 reaching statistical significance (P ≤ .01). Residents' active learning behaviors in lectures were higher in the intervention arm for all 7 items, with 5 reaching statistical significance. Faculty in the intervention group demonstrated increased use of higher-order questioning (P = .02) and solicited justifications for answers (P = .01). Conclusion A 1-hour faculty development program increased faculty use of active learning strategies and residents' engagement in active learning during resident core curriculum lectures.

show abstract

Effect of an Audience Response System on Resident Learning and Retention of Lecture Material

Abstract: Use of appropriate interactive teaching techniques facilitates residents' learning and retention of material. In our study, long-term retention was especially improved with use of an interactive lecture style.

Cited by 97 publications

References 3 publications

The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21

The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21

Concurrent Use of an Audience Response System at a Multi-Campus College of Pharmacy

Evaluation of a Faculty Development Program Aimed at Increasing Residents' Active Learning in Lectures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About