The impact of wireless keypads in an interprofessional education context with health science students

The aim of this study was to identify if wireless keypads could facilitate interprofessional interaction among undergraduate paramedic, nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, health science, social work and midwifery students. Secondary research aims included the examination of students' perceptions of interprofessional education and how students perceived using wireless keypads in large lecture classes and smaller tutorials. The study used a mixed methodology approach via self-reporting questionnaires and focus groups that included ( n = 210) students in week 1 and ( n = 151) students in week 13 of an undergraduate unit. Overall, students were satisfied with the use of wireless keypads in their interprofessional undergraduate unit of study. While modest findings supported the use of wireless keypads in improving student interaction, other findings were statistically significant in understanding the roles of other health professions and why collaboration in health-care environments was important for professional growth. The following themes emerged from the qualitative data: engagement, satisfaction, use of educational technology, interprofessional education and learning environment. Integration of wireless keypads has assisted undergraduate students to better appreciate and understand other health-care disciplines within an interprofessional education setting. Students reported that they appreciated the alternative teaching and learning approach that wireless keypads offered, thus improving engagement and interactivity, and providing a broader understanding of other allied health-care professions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  Quintin Cutts,et al.  Electronically enhanced classroom interaction , 2002 .

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

[3]  Edwin R. Griff,et al.  Early identification of at-risk students using a personal response system , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[4]  John Barnett,et al.  Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions , 2006 .

[5]  J. Poulis,et al.  Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback , 1998 .

[6]  Anna Carlin,et al.  Waking the Dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom , 2004, AMCIS.

[7]  L. V. Dijk,et al.  Interactive lectures in engineering education , 2001 .

[8]  C. Teddlie,et al.  SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research , 2010 .

[9]  Margaret I. Brown,et al.  Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: one practitioner's application , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[10]  Alison White,et al.  The integration of group response systems into teaching and LOLA, the missing link in computer assisted assessment , 2001 .

[11]  Margaret I. Brown,et al.  Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

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

[13]  Catherine Jones,et al.  Group interactive learning with group process support technology , 2001, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[14]  Manjula D. Sharma,et al.  An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lecture classes , 2005 .

[15]  Edward Palmer,et al.  Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: a randomised trial , 2007, BMC medical education.

[16]  R. Burnstein,et al.  Using Wireless Keypads in Lecture Classes , 2001 .

[17]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  The association between students' use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[18]  Khe Foon Hew,et al.  The impact of the use of response pad system on the learning of secondary school physics concepts: A Singapore quasi-experiment study , 2009, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[19]  Eugene Judson,et al.  Learning from Past and Present: Electronic Response Systems in College Lecture Halls , 2002 .

[20]  Roger C. Lowery,et al.  Teaching and Learning with Interactive Student Response Systems: A Comparison of Commercial Products in the Higher-Education Market , 2005 .

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

[22]  Jeremy B. Williams.  Learning by Romote Control: Exploring the Use of An Audience Response System as a Vehicle for Content Delivery , 2003 .

[23]  Richard H. Hall,et al.  A Student Response System for Increasing Engagement, Motivation, and Learning in High Enrollment Lectures , 2005, AMCIS.

[24]  Daniel Pritchard,et al.  The Use of "Clicker" Technology to Enhance the Teaching / Learning Experience. , 2006 .

[25]  Paul Ginns,et al.  Anonymity and in class learning: The case for electronic response systems , 2006 .

[26]  D. Nicol,et al.  Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom , 2003 .

[27]  Jennifer Fleming,et al.  Health care workforce , 2008 .

[28]  D. Bender,et al.  The focus group as a tool for health research: issues in design and analysis. , 1994, Health transition review : the cultural, social, and behavioural determinants of health.

[29]  Wei Wang,et al.  Use of a computerized audience response system in medical student teaching: Its effect on active learning and exam performance , 2006 .

[30]  M. Jensen,et al.  Manna from Heaven or “clickers” from Hell: Experiences with an electronic response system , 2005 .