The audience response system and knowledge gain: A prospective study

Medical Teacher

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2012, Pages

  Tregonning, Alexandra M ^a   Doherty, Dorota A ^a   Hornbuckle, Janet ^a   Dickinson, Jan E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; EDUCATION; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; GYNECOLOGY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; METHODOLOGY; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; PREMATURE LABOR; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

EDUCATION, MEDICAL; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; OBSTETRIC LABOR, PREMATURE; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; WESTERN AUSTRALIA;

EID: 84859195722     PISSN: 0142159X     EISSN: 1466187X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.660218     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alexander C, Crescini W, Juskewitch J, 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. Beatty I. 2004. Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE Cent Appl Res Bull 2004:1-13.
3. Beekes W. 2006. The 'millionaire' method for encouraging participation. Act Learn High Educ 7:25-36.
4. Brown G, Manogue M. 2001. AMEE medical education guide no. 22: Refreshing lecturing: A guide for lecturers. Med Teach 23:231-244.
5. Caldwell J. 2007. Clickers in the large classroom: Current reseach and best tips. CBE-Life Sci Educ 6:9-20.
6. Chan D. 2002. Development of the clinical learning environment inventory: Using the theoretical framework of learning environment studies to assess nursing students' perceptions of the hospital as a learning environment. J Nurs Educ 41:69-75.
7. Copeland HL, Stoller JK, Hewson MG, Longworth DL. 1998. Making the continuing medical education lecture effective. J Contin Educ Health Prof 18:227-234.
8. Cwiak C, Edelman A, Hatcher R, Zieman M, Nichols M, Jensen R, Emmons S, Khan I. 2004. Teaching contraception: An interactive presentation using managing contraception. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 191:1788-1792.
9. Debourgh G. 2008. Use of classroom 'clickers' to promote acquisition of reasoning skills. Nurs Educ Pract 8:76-87.
10. Duggan P, Palmer E, Devitt P. 2007. Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: A randomised trial. BMC Med Educ 7:25.
11. Fischer R, Jacobs S, Herbert W. 2004. Small-group discussion versus lecture format for third-year students in obstetrics and gynecology. Am Coll Obstetr Gynecol 104:349-353.
12. Gauci S, Dantas A, Williams D, Kemm R. 2009. Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Adv Physiol Educ 33:60-71.
13. Gulpinar M, Yegen B. 2005. Interactive lecturing for meaningful learning in large groups. Med Teach 27:590-594.
14. Holmes RG, Blalock JS, Parker MH, Haywood VB, Holmes RG, Blalock JS, Parker MH, Haywood VB. 2006. Student accuracy and evaluation of a computer-based audience response system. J Dent Educ 70:1355-1361.
15. Hoyt A, Mcnulty JA, Gruener G, Chandrasekhar A, Espiritu B, Ensminger D, Price R, Naheedy R. 2010. An audience response system may influence student performance on anatomy examination questions. Anat Sci Educ 3:295-299.
16. Hutchinson L. 2003. ABC of learning and teaching. Educational environment. BMJ 326:810-812.
17. Joyce C, Stoelwinder J, Mcneil J, Piterman L. 2007. Riding the wave: Current and emerging trends in graduates from Australian univeristy medical schools. MJA 186:309-312.
18. Latessa R, Mouw D, Latessa R, Mouw D. 2005. Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Fam Med 37:12-14.
19. Mccoubrie P. 2004. Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: A literature review. Med Teach 26:709-712.
20. McLaughlin K, Mandin H. 2001. A schematic approach to diagnosing and resolving lecturalgia. Med Educ 35:1135-1142.
21. Menon A, Moffett S, Enriquez M, Martinez M, Dev P, Grappone T. 2004. Audience response made easy: Using personal digital assistants as a classroom polling tool. J Am Med Inform Assoc 11:217-219.
22. Miller RG, Ashar BH, Getz KJ, 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.
23. Nayak L, Erinjeri P. 2008. Audience response systems in medical student education benefit learners and presenters. Acad Radiol 15:383-389.
24. Newble D, Cannon R. 2001. A handbook for medical teachers. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers
25. Nguyen L, Fraunholz B, Salzman S, Smith R. 2006. Students' performance and perception linked to the use of Group and Audience Response Systems (GARS) in large classes, ColleCTeR.
26. O'Brien T, Wang W, Medvedev I, Wile M, Nosek T. 2006. Use of a computerized audience response system in medical student teaching: Its effect on exam performance. Med Teach 28:736-738.
27. Pinsky L, Irby D. 1997. ''If at first you don't succeed'': Using failure to improve teaching. Acad Med 72:973-976.
28. Pradhan A, Sparano D, Ananth CV, Pradhan A, Sparano D, Ananth CV. 2005. The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention: An application to resident education. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:1827-1830.
29. Richardson D. 2008. Don't dump the didactic lecture; fix it. Adv Physiol Educ 32: 23-24.
30. Robertson LJ. 2000. Twelve tips for using a computerized interactive audience response system. Med Teach 22:237-239.
31. Uhari M, Renko M, Soini H, Uhari M, Renko M, Soini H. 2003. Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Med Educ 3:12.