Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences

The goals of our study were to determine the predictive value and usability of an audience response system (ARS) as a knowledge assessment tool in an undergraduate medical curriculum. Over a three year period (2006–2008), data were collected from first year didactic blocks in Genetics/Histology and Anatomy/Radiology (n = 42–50 per class). During each block, students answered clinically oriented multiple choice questions using the ARS. Students' performances were recorded and cumulative ARS scores were compared with final examination performances. Correlation coefficients between these variables were calculated to assess the existence and direction of an association between ARS and final examination score. If associations existed, univariate models were then constructed using ARS as a predictor of final examination score. Student and faculty perception of ARS difficulty, usefulness, effect on performance, and preferred use were evaluated using a questionnaire. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between ARS and final examination scores in all didactic blocks and predictive univariate models were constructed for each relationship (all P < 0.0001). Students and faculty agreed that ARS was easy to use and a reliable tool for providing real‐time feedback that improved their performance and participation. In conclusion, we found ARS to be an effective assessment tool benefiting the faculty and the students in a curriculum focused on interaction and self‐directed learning. Anat Sci Educ 2:160–166. © 2009 American Association of Anatomists.

[1]  Cande V Ananth,et al.  The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention: an application to resident education. , 2005, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  James Boyle Eight Years of Asking Questions , 2006 .

[3]  J. Mestre,et al.  ASK-IT/A2L: Assessing student knowlede with instructional technology , 2005, physics/0508144.

[4]  Dejano T Sobral,et al.  Cross‐year peer tutoring experience in a medical school: conditions and outcomes for student tutors , 2002, Medical education.

[5]  T Eric Schackow,et al.  Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. , 2004, Family medicine.

[6]  J. Erinjeri,et al.  Audience response systems in medical student education benefit learners and presenters. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[7]  Matthew J Bassignani,et al.  Effect of an audience response system on resident learning and retention of lecture material. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  W. Pawlina,et al.  Can a flexible medical curriculum promote student learning and satisfaction? , 2007, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.

[9]  Lorraine J. Robertson Twelve tips for using a computerised interactive audience response system , 2000 .

[10]  J. Collins,et al.  Audience response systems: technology to engage learners. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[11]  Robin Kay,et al.  A strategic assessment of audience response systems used in higher education , 2009 .

[12]  F. Rybicki,et al.  A novel standard-compliant audience response system for medical education. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[13]  S. Carmichael,et al.  Assessing professionalism in early medical education: experience with peer evaluation and self-evaluation in the gross anatomy course. , 2005, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.

[14]  Jeremy Roschelle,et al.  Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[15]  Jared Keengwe,et al.  Faculty Integration of Technology into Instruction and Students’ Perceptions of Computer Technology to Improve Student Learning , 2007 .

[16]  Maryfran Barber,et al.  Clicker evolution: seeking intelligent design. , 2007, CBE life sciences education.

[17]  Robert J. Dufresne,et al.  QUESTION DRIVEN INSTRUCTION: TEACHING SCIENCE (WELL) WITH AN AUDIENCE RESPONSE SYSTEM , 2005 .

[18]  William Perrotti,et al.  From college to clinic: Reasoning over memorization is key for understanding anatomy , 2002, The Anatomical record.

[19]  Jane E Caldwell,et al.  Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. , 2007, CBE life sciences education.

[20]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Farewell, Lecture? , 2009, Science.

[21]  W. Pawlina,et al.  Putting the needs of the patient first: Mayo Clinic's core value, institutional culture, and professionalism covenant. , 2007, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[22]  M. Oliver,et al.  Electronic Voting Systems for Lectures then and Now: A Comparison of Research and Practice , 2007 .

[23]  Kalyani Premkumar,et al.  Rules of engagement–12 tips for successful use of “clickers” in the classroom , 2008, Medical teacher.

[24]  Jeffrey T Johnson,et al.  Creating learner-centered classrooms: use of an audience response system in pediatric dentistry education. , 2005, Journal of dental education.