Evaluation of Interactive Teaching for Undergraduate Medical Students Using a Classroom Interactive Response System in India

Overview

Journal Med J Armed Forces India

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2015 Aug 20

PMID 26285666

Citations 3

Authors

Rakesh Datta

Karuna Datta

M D Venkatesh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The classical didactic lecture has been the cornerstone of the theoretical undergraduate medical education. Their efficacy however reduces due to reduced interaction and short attention span of the students. It is hypothesized that the interactive response pad obviates some of these drawbacks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an interactive response system by comparing it with conventional classroom teaching.

Methods: A prospective comparative longitudinal study was conducted on 192 students who were exposed to either conventional or interactive teaching over 20 classes. Pre-test, Post-test and retentions test (post 8-12 weeks) scores were collated and statistically analysed. An independent observer measured number of student interactions in each class.

Results: Pre-test scores from both groups were similar (p = 0.71). There was significant improvement in both post test scores when compared to pre-test scores in either method (p < 0.001). The interactive post-test score was better than conventional post test score (p < 0.001) by 8-10% (95% CI-difference of means - 8.2%-9.24%-10.3%). The interactive retention test score was better than conventional retention test score (p < 0.001) by 15-18% (95% CI-difference of means - 15.0%-16.64%-18.2%). There were 51 participative events in the interactive group vs 25 in the conventional group.

Conclusions: The Interactive Response Pad method was efficacious in teaching. Students taught with the interactive method were likely to score 8-10% higher (statistically significant) in the immediate post class time and 15-18% higher (statistically significant) after 8-12 weeks. The number of student-teacher interactions increases when using the interactive response pads.

Citing Articles

The impact of an audience response system on a summative assessment, a controlled field study.

Schmidt T, Gazou A, Riess A, Riess O, Grundmann-Hauser K, Falb R BMC Med Educ. 2020; 20(1):218.

PMID: 32660496 PMC: 7359272. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-02130-4.

Flipped learning: should it replace didactic learning?.

Osman A, Jalal S, Azizi S Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017; 8:707-708.

PMID: 29070958 PMC: 5640416. DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S149533.

What patients with pulmonary fibrosis and their partners think: a live, educative survey in the Netherlands and Germany.

van Manen M, Kreuter M, van den Blink B, Oltmanns U, Palmowski K, Brunnemer E ERJ Open Res. 2017; 3(1).

PMID: 28229083 PMC: 5308412. DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00065-2016.

References

Graeff E, Vail M, Maldonado A, Lund M, Galante S, Tataronis G . Click it: assessment of classroom response systems in physician assistant education. J Allied Health. 2011; 40(1):e1-5. View

Schreiber B, Fukuta J, Gordon F . Live lecture versus video podcast in undergraduate medical education: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2010; 10:68. PMC: 2958969. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-68. View

Latham L, MacDonald A, Kimball A, Langley R . Teaching empathy to undergraduate medical students using a temporary tattoo simulating psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011; 67(1):93-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.07.023. View

Palmer E, Devitt P, De Young N, Morris D . Assessment of an electronic voting system within the tutorial setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN54535861]. BMC Med Educ. 2005; 5(1):24. PMC: 1180440. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-5-24. View

Schultz K, Brackbill M . Teaching electrocardiogram basics using dance and movement. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009; 73(4):70. PMC: 2720366. DOI: 10.5688/aj730470. View

Southwick F . Theodore E. Woodward Award: spare me the PowerPoint and bring back the medical textbook. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2008; 118:115-22. PMC: 1863601. View

Fitzpatrick K, Finn K, 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(3):280-9. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00036.2011. View

Narayanan S, Kumar R, Nayak S . Student-involved demonstration approach to teach the physiology of vestibular apparatus for undergraduate medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2011; 23(3):269-77. DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2011.586930. View

Pradhan A, Sparano D, Ananth C . The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention: an application to resident education. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193(5):1827-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.075. View

10.

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:Article32. DOI: 10.2202/1548-923X.2049. View

11.

Grieve C . Knowledge increment assessed for three methodologies of teaching physiology. Med Teach. 1992; 14(1):27-32. DOI: 10.3109/01421599209044011. View

12.

Li C, Kuan W, Mahadevan M, Daniel-Underwood L, Chiu T, Nguyen H . A multinational randomised study comparing didactic lectures with case scenario in a severe sepsis medical simulation course. Emerg Med J. 2011; 29(7):559-64. DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2011-200068. View

13.

Patel J . Using game format in small group classes for pharmacotherapeutics case studies. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008; 72(1):21. PMC: 2254250. DOI: 10.5688/aj720121. View

14.

Stuart J, Rutherford R . Medical student concentration during lectures. Lancet. 1978; 2(8088):514-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(78)92233-x. View

15.

Vana K, Silva G, Muzyka D, Hirani L . Effectiveness of an audience response system in teaching pharmacology to baccalaureate nursing students. Comput Inform Nurs. 2011; 29(6 Suppl):TC105-13. DOI: 10.1097/NCN.0b013e3182285d71. View

16.

Crossgrove K, Curran K . Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2008; 7(1):146-54. PMC: 2262112. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.07-08-0060. View

17.

Schackow T, Chavez M, Loya L, Friedman M . Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med. 2004; 36(7):496-504. View

18.

Cain J, Robinson E . A primer on audience response systems: current applications and future considerations. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008; 72(4):77. PMC: 2576416. DOI: 10.5688/aj720477. View