Student perceptions of gamified audience response system interactions in large group lectures and via lecture capture technology Approaches to teaching and learning

BMC Medical Education

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Pettit, Robin K ^a   McCoy, Lise ^a   Kinney, Marjorie ^a   Schwartz, Frederic N ^a  

^a A T STILL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Audience response system; Clicker; Game; Gamification; Medical microbiology; TurningPoint

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; FEMALE; GAME; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; MICROBIOLOGY; OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; TEACHING;

EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; FEMALE; GAMES, EXPERIMENTAL; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MALE; MICROBIOLOGY; OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TEACHING;

EID: 84934923326     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726920     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-015-0373-7     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Engin Educ. 2004;93(3):223-31.
2. Kay RH, LeSage A. Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature. Comput Educ. 2009;53(3):819-27.
3. Caldwell JE. Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2007;6:9-20.
4. Cain J, Robinson E. A primer on audience response systems: current applications and future considerations. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(4):77.
5. Mareno N, Bremner M, Emerson C. The use of audience response systems in nursing education: best practice guidelines. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2010;7(1):32.
6. Nelson C, Hartling L, Campbell S, Oswald AE. The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21. Med Teach. 2012;34:e386-405.
7. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS. 2014;111(23):8410-5.
8. Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R, Bruns P, Chang A, DeHaan R, et al. Scientific teaching. Science. 2004;304:521-2.
9. Michael J. Where's the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;30:159-67.
10. Wood W. Clickers: a teaching gimmick that works. Dev Cell. 2004;7:796-8.
11. Stoddard HA, Piquette CA. A controlled study of improvements in student exam performance with the use of an audience response system during medical school lectures. Acad Med. 2010;85 Suppl 10:S37-40.
12. FitzPatrick KA, Finn KE, Campisi J. Effect of personal response systems on student perception and academic performance in courses in a health sciences curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35:280-9.
13. Kaleta R, Joosten T: Student response systems: a University of Wisconsin system study of clickers [ http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/student-response-systems-university-wisconsin-system-study-clickers ]
14. Siau K, Sheng H, Nah FF-H. Use of a classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Trans Educ. 2006;49(3):398-403.
15. Sternberger CS. Interactive learning environment: engaging students using clickers. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2012;33(2):121-4.
16. Thomas CM, Monturo C, Conroy K. Experiences of faculty and students using an audience response system in the classroom. Comput Inform Nurs. 2011;29(7):396-400.
17. Patterson B, Kilpatrick J, Woebkenberg E. Evidence for teaching practice: the impact of clickers in a large classroom environment. Nurse Educ Today. 2010;30:603-7.
18. Akl EA, Pretorius RW, Sackett K, Erdley S, Bhoopathi PS, Alfarah Z, et al. The effect of educational games on medical students' learning outcomes: a systemic review. BEME Guide No. 14. Med Teach. 2010;32:16-27.
19. Salen K, Zimmerman E. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2004.
20. Schell J. The Art of Game Design. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2008.
21. Barkley EF. Student Engagement Techniques. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
22. Pettit RK, McCoy L, Kinney M, Schwartz FN. A multimedia audience response game show for medical education. Med Sci Educ. 2014;24:181-7.
23. Akl EA, Gunukula S, Mustafa R, Wilson MC, Symons A, Moheet A, et al. Support for and aspects of use of educational games in family medicine and internal medicine residency programs in the US: a survey. IBMC Med Educ. 2010;10:1-5.
24. Beylefeld AA, Struwig MC. A gaming approach to learning medical microbiology: student's experiences of flow. Med Teach. 2007;29:933-40.
25. Valente P, Lora PS, Landell MF, Schiefelbein CS, Girardi FM, Souza LR, et al. A game for teaching antimicrobial mechanisms of action. Med Teach. 2009;31:e383-92.
26. Zakaryan V, Bliss R, Sarvazyan N. Non-trivial pursuit of physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005;1:11-4.
27. Da Rosa AC, Moreno Fde L, Mezzomo KM, Scroferneker ML. Viral hepatitis: an alternative teaching method. Educ Heath. 2006;19:14-21.
28. Graafland M, Schraagen JM, Schijven MP. Systematic review of serious games for medical education and surgical skills training. J Surg. 2012;99:1322-30.
29. Akl EA, Mustafa R, Slomka T, Alawneh A, Vedavalli A, Schunemann HJ. An educational game for teaching clinical practice guidelines to internal medicine residents: development, feasibility and acceptability. BMC Med Educ. 2008;8:1-9.
30. Hudson JN, Bristow DR. Formative assessment can be fun as well as educational. Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;30:33-7.
31. Jirasevijinda T, Brown LC. Jeopardy! An innovative approach to teach psychosocial aspects of pediatrics. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:333-6.
32. Moy JR, Rodenbaugh DW, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE. Who wants to be a physician? An educational tool for reviewing pulmonary physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000;24:30-7.
33. O'Leary S, Diepenhorst L, Churley-Strom R, Magrane D. Educational games in an obstetrics and gynecology core curriculum. Am J Obst Gynec. 2005;193:1848-51.
34. Schuh L, Burdette DE, Schultz L, Silver B. Learning Clinical Neurophysiology: gaming is better than lectures. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;25:167-9.
35. Shiroma PR, Massa AA, Alarcon RD. Using game format to teach psychopharmacology to medical students. Med Teach. 2011;33:156-60.
36. Johnson L, Adams Becker S, Estrada V, Freeman A. NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium; 2014.
37. Schonfeld E: SCVNGR secret game mechanics playdeck. [ http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/25/scvngr-game-mechanics/ ]
38. Schlegel EFM, Selfridge NJ. Fun, collaboration and formative assessment: Skinquizition, a class wide gaming competition in a medical school with a large class. Med Teach. 2014;36:447-9.
39. McCoy L, Pettit R, Lewis J, Bennett T, Carrasco N, Brysacz S, et al. Developing technology-enhanced active learning for medical education: Challenges, solutions, and future directions. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2015;115:202-11.
40. Price Kerfoot B, Turchin A, Breydo E, Gagnon D, Conlin PR. An online spaced-education game among clinicians improves their patients' time to blood pressure control: a randomized controlled trial. Circ Cardiovsc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7:468-74.
41. De Bilde J, Vanteenkiste M, Lens W. Understanding the association between the future time perspective and self-regulated learning through the lens of self-determination theory. Learn Instruc. 2011;21:332-44.
42. Lehman B, D'Mello S, Graeser A. Confusion and complex learning during interactions with computer learning environments. Internet High Educ. 2012;15:184-94.
43. Czikzenmihaly M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Collins; 1990.
44. Admiraal W, Huizenga J, Akkerman S, ten Dam G. The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning. Comput Human Behav. 2011;27(3):1185-94.
45. Schiefele U, Raabe A. Skills-demands compatibility as a determinant of flow experience in an inductive reasoning task. Psychol Rep. 2011;109(2):428-44.
46. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2010.
47. Karasik RJ. Engaged teaching for engaged learning: sharing your passion for gerontology and geriatrics. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2012;33(2):119-32.
48. Oblinger DG, Oblinger JL. Educating the net generation. [ https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf ]
49. Hoekstra A, Mollborn S. How clicker use facilitates existing pedagogical practices in higher education: data from interdisciplinary research on student response systems. Learn Media Technol. 2012;37(3):303-20.
50. Miller G. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65:563-7.
51. Trew JL, Nelsen JL. Getting the most out of audience response systems: predicting student reactions. Learn Media Technol. 2012;37(4):379-94.
52. Shieh RS, Chang W, Liu EZ-F. Technology enabled active learning (TEAL) in introductory physics: impact on genders and achievement levels. Australas J Educ Tech. 2011;27(7):1082-99.
53. Pekrun R, Goetz T, Titz W, Perry RP. Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educ Psych. 2002;37:91-105.
54. Harris ST, Zeng X: Using an audience response system (ARS) in a face-to-face and distance education CPT/HCPCS coding course [ http://perspectives.ahima.org/using-an-audience-response-system-ars-in-a-face-to-face-and-distance-education-cpthcpcs-coding-course/#.VGU46vnF-HU ]
55. Clauson KA, Alkhateeb FM, Singh-Franco D. Concurrent use of an audience response system at a multi-campus college of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(1):6.