Use of an audience response system during peer teaching among physical therapy students in human gross anatomy: Perceptions of peer teachers and students

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 2, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 286-293

  Wait, Kevin R ^a   Cloud, Beth A ^a   Forster, Lindsey A ^a   Jones, Tiffany M ^a   Nokleby, Jessica J ^a   Wolfe, Cortney R ^a   Youdas, James W ^a  

^a Mayo School of Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

Audience response system (ARS); Formative feedback; Gross anatomy; Peer teaching; Physical therapy students

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; FACULTY; FEEDBACK, PSYCHOLOGICAL; HUMANS; PEER GROUP; PHYSICAL THERAPY (SPECIALTY); QUESTIONNAIRES; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

EID: 73649137844     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.107     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alexander CJ, Crescini WM, Juskewitch JE, Lachman N, Pawlina W. 2009. Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ 2:160-166.
2. Allen AR, Boraks N. 1978. Peer tutoring: Putting it to the test. Read Teach 32:274-278.
3. Bruecker JK, MacPherson BR. 2004. Benefits from peer teaching in the dental gross anatomy laboratory. Eur J Dent Educ 8:72-77.
4. Collins J. 2008. Audience response systems: Technology to engage learners. J Am Coll Radiol 5:993-1000.
5. Copeland HL, Longworth DL, Hewson MG, Stoller JK. 2000. Successful lecturing: A prospective study to validate attributes of the effective medical lecture. J Gen Intern Med 15:366-371.
6. DeBourgh GA. 2008. Use of classroom "clickers" to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurse Educ Pract 8:76-87.
7. Drake RL, Vogl W, Mitchell AWM. 2005. Gray's Anatomy for Students. 1st Ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. 1058 p.
8. Eggert CH, West CP, Thomas KG. Impact of an audience response system. Med Edu 38:576.
9. Ellis H. 2001. Teaching in the dissecting room. Clin Anat 14:149-151.
10. Homme J, Asay G, Morgenstern B. 2004. Utilization of an audience response system. Med Edu 38:575.
11. Jenkins DB. 2002. Hollinshead's Functional Anatomy of the Limbs and Back. 8th Ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders. 400 p.
12. Jette DU, Portney LG. 2003. Construct validation of a model for professional behavior in physical therapist students. Phys Ther 5:432-443.
13. Johnson JH. 2002. Importance of dissection in learning anatomy: Personal dissection versus peer teaching. Clin Anat 15:38-44.
14. Krych AJ, March CN, Bryan RE, Peake BJ, Pawlina W, Carmichael SW. 2005. Reciprocal peer teaching: Students teaching students in the gross anatomy laboratory. Clin Anat 18:296-301.
15. Lake DA. 1999. Enhancement of student performance in a gross anatomy course with the use of peer tutoring. J Phys Ther Educ 13:34-38.
16. Latessa R, Mouw D. 2005. Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Fam Med 37:12-14.
17. Mattingly GE, Barnes CE. 1994. Teaching human anatomy in physical therapy education in the United States: A survey. Phys Ther 74:720-727.
18. Miller RG, Ashar BH, Getz KJ. 2003. Evaluation of an audience response system for the continuing education of health professionals. J Contin Educ Health Prof 23:109-115.
19. Nasmith L, Steinert Y. 2001. The evaluation of a workshop to promote interactive learning. Teach Learn Med 13:43-48.
20. Nayak L, Erinjeri JP. 2008. Audience response systems in medical student education benefit learners and presenters. Acad Radiol 15:383-389.
21. Netter FH. 2003. Atlas of Human Anatomy. 3rd Ed. Teterboro, NJ: Icon Learning Systems. 604 p.
22. Nnodim JO. 1997. A controlled trial of peer-teaching in practical gross anatomy. Clin Anat 10:112-117.
23. Ocel JJ, Palmer BA, Wittich CM, Carmichael SW, Pawlina W. 2003. Outcomes of the gross and developmental anatomy teaching assistant experience. Clin Anat 16:526-530.
24. Peppler RD, Kwasigrock TE, Houghland MW. 1985. Evaluation of simultaneous teaching of extremities in gross anatomy program. JMed Educ 60:635-639.
25. Premkumar K, Coupal C. 2008. Rules of engagement-12 tips for successful use of "clickers" in the classroom. Med Teach 30:146-149.
26. Resnick L, Jensen GM. 2003. Using clinical outcomes to explore the theory of expert practice in physical therapy. Phys Ther 83:1090-1106.
27. Robertson LJ. 2000. Twelve tips for using a computerized interactive audience response system. Med Teach 22:237-239.
28. Schakow TE, Chavez M, Loya L, Friedman M. 2004. Audience response system: Effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med 36:496-504.
29. Stein PS, Challman SD, Brueckner JK. 2006. Using audience response technology for pretest reviews in an undergraduate nursing program. J Nurs Educ 45:469-473.
30. Streeter JL, Rybicki FJ. 2006. Education techniques for lifelong learning. A novel standard-compliant audience response system for medical education. Radiographics 26:1243-1249.
31. Torbeck L. 2007. Enhancing programme evaluation using the audience response system. Med Educ 41:1088-1089.
32. Uhari M, Renko M, Soini H. 2003. Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Med Educ 3:12.
33. Wolff-Burke M. 2005. Clinical instructors' descriptions of physical therapist student professional behaviors. J Phys Ther Educ 19:67-75.
34. Yeager VL. 1981. Peer teaching in gross anatomy. J Med Educ 56:922.
35. Yeager VL, Young PA. 1992. Peer teaching in gross anatomy at St. Louis University. Clin Anat 5:304-310.
36. Youdas JW, Krause DA, Hellyer NJ, Hollman JH, Rindflesch AB. 2007. Perceived usefulness of reciprocal peer teaching among doctor of physical therapy students in the gross anatomy laboratory. J Phys Ther Educ 21:30-38.
37. Youdas JW, Hoffarth BL, Kohlwey SR, Kramer CM, Petro JL. 2008. Peer teaching among physical therapy students during human gross anatomy: perceptions of peer teachers and students. Anat Sci Educ 1:199-206.