Student evaluation of clickers in a dental pathology course

Abstract

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree of satisfaction of students and teachers, and to determine whether the students notice improvements in learning and in the learning environment as a result of the use of clicker. Material and Methods Descriptive study. Fifty-one students and 8 teachers participated in the use of clicker technology in 8 preclinical seminars in dental pathology. Students and teachers filled a three-domain questionnaire at the end of the preclinical course. We used the Mann-Whitney U-test to compare the results between the two groups. Results The domain “perception and expectation” showed the use of clickers to be simple and convenient for 80% of the students, who expressed interest in extending the practice to other teaching areas. In the domain “active learning”, over 70% of the students found the technique to be dynamic, participative and motivating. In the domain “improved learning”, over 70% considered it useful to know their level of knowledge before the seminar and found the contents of the lesson to be clear. Thirty percent considered the items of the examination to be of a complexity similar to that of the first and second tests. Only in this latter aspect were significant differences found between the teachers and students (p=0.001). Conclusions Participants described the use of clickers as simple and useful, motivating and participative. Both the students and teachers considered the technique to improve teaching and the learning environment. Key words:Dental education, audience response system, clickers, classroom response system, student´s perception.

As Student Response Systems Expand Features and Question Types, Multiple Choice Continues to be the Gold Standard for Calculations from both Student and Instructor Perspectives

“…This study agrees with a growing body of literature spanning many educational disciplines, showing students hold a strong positive opinion of using an SRS for formative assessment. Across STEM disciplines, such as nutrition (Gould, 2016), psychology (Landrum, 2013), dentistry (Llena et al, 2015), biology (Morrell & Joyce, 2015), and nursing (Patterson et al, 2010), researchers have demonstrated evidence for continued and expanded SRS usage. More interestingly, this study can provide instructors with some information on how to make pedagogical decisions around which SRS features to use-in this case testing mathematical concepts with .…”

“…Previous work has found that SRS usage increases student engagement and promotes active learning (Addison et al, 2009;Gould, 2016;Llena et al, 2015;Masikunas et al, 2007;Miles & Soares da Costa, 2016) and can also improve student comprehension (Crouch & Mazur, 2001;Levine, 2011;Rana & Dwivedi, 2017). A limitation of previous studies is that students using SRSs are often compared to students who do not use them.…”

Systematic review of the implementation of audience response systems and their impact on participation and engagement in the education of healthcare professionals

“…Two studies did not find a clear suggestion of CRS improving participation24 25; in addition to these, three further studies stated that significant difficulties, either in integration of CRS into the existing teaching programme or in the technical set-up, hampered its implementation 26–28. In contrast, Llena  et al ,29 while not explicitly set out to assess the implementation of CRS, did find the platform easy to use. However, with a third of studies in the review highlighting difficulties in implementing CRS, significant impediments to CRS may exist in healthcare education.…”

Student Perspectives on the Use of Interactive Video Lectures in Online Classes

“…Subjective measures of learning. Along with more objective measures showing active learning strategies can help improve academic performance, students have largely espoused the use of PRS as supporting their perceived learning and overall understanding of course content (Gauci et al, 2009;Johnson, 2005;Keough, 2012;Koenig, 2010;Llena et al, 2015;Milner-Bolotin et al, 2010;Patry, 2009;Poirier et al, 2007;Porter & Tousman, 2010;Uhari et al, 2003). For example, aside from objectively doing better on exams, the Poirier and Feldman (2007) study also found that students in the PRS section reported that they felt they learned more because of the use of clickers specifically (66% of students agreed or strongly agreed).…”

“…The use of active learning strategies has, beyond objective and subjective measures of student learning, been largely perceived by students as beneficial for engagement in their courses (FitzPatrick et al, 2011;Gauci et al, 2009;Keough, 2012;Koenig, 2010;Llena et al, 2015;Moredich & Moore, 2007;Patry, 2009;Porter & Tousman, 2010). In a study of 229 Anatomy and Physiology students across six course sections using clickers, FitzPatrick and colleagues (2011) found students reported being more engaged and participating more in a class that used clickers than in traditional lecture classes without clickers.…”