Radiologist/Educator Knowledge of the Audience Response System and Limitations to Its Use

Academic Radiology

Volumn 16, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1555-1560

  Nicholson, Brandi T ^a   Bassignani, Matthew J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDIENCE RESPONSE SYSTEM; CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT; KNOWLEDGE; LEARNING STYLE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RESIDENCY EDUCATION;

EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS (PSYCHOLOGY); PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOLOGY; TEACHING; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70350570527     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.07.014     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Schackow T.E., Chavez M., Loya L., et al. Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med 36 (2004) 496-504
2. Rubio E.I., Bassignani M.J., White M.A., et al. Effect of an audience response system on resident learning and retention of lecture material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190 (2008) W319-W322
3. Uhari M., Renko M., and Soini H. Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Med Educ 3 (2003) 12
4. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER). The generations in today's workplace: who they are. 2008. Avaliable at: http://www.lynchburgchamber.org/media/9990/wfprofessionaldevelopment/Workplace%20generation%20gap.doc. Accessed February 6, 2009.
5. Bickel J., and Brown A. Generation X: implications for faculty recruitment and development in academic health centers. Acad Radiol 80 (2005) 205-210
6. Copeland H.L., Longworth D.L., Hewson M.G., et al. Successful lecturing: a prospective study to validate attributes of the effective medical lecture. J Gen Intern Med 15 (2000) 366-371
7. Handfield-Jones R., Nasmith L., Steinert Y., et al. Creativity in medical education: the use of innovative techniques in clinical teaching. Med Teach 15 (1993) 3-10
8. Nasmith L., and Steinert Y. The evaluation of a workshop to promote interactive lecturing. Teach Learn Med 13 (2001) 43-48
9. Elashvili A., Denehy G.E., Dawson D.V., et al. Evaluation of an audience response system in a preclinical operative dentistry course. J Dent Educ 72 (2008) 1296-1303
10. Steinert Y., and Snell L. Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Med Teach 21 (1999) 37-42
11. Nayak L., and Erinjeri J.P. Audience response systems in medical student education benefit learners and presenters. Acad Radiol 15 (2008) 383-389
12. Collins J. Audience response systems: technology to engage learners. J Am Coll Radiol 5 (2008) 993-1000
13. Papp K., and Miller F. The answer to stimulating lectures is the question. Med Teach 18 (1996) 147-149
14. Das M., El-Sabban F., and Bener A. Student and faculty perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal teacher in a classroom setting. Med Teach 18 (1996) 141-146
15. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Radiology residency program requirements. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/RRC_420/420_prindex.asp. Accessed February 6, 2009.
16. American Board of Radiology. Overview of ABR changes: the exam of the future. Available at, http://theabr.org/present/overview_changes_2.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2009
17. Amis Jr. E.S., Baker S.R., Becker G.J., et al. Panel discussions in radiology: changes in radiology training and new examination format. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191 (2008) W217-W230
18. McLaughlin K., and Mandin H. A schematic approach to diagnosing and resolving lecturalgia. Med Educ 35 (2001) 1135-1142