BACKGROUND: Audience response systems (ARS) represent one approach to make classroom learning more active. Although ARS may have pedagogical value, their impact is still unclear. This systematic review aims to examine the effect of ARS on learning outcomes in health professions education. METHODS: After a comprehensive literature search, two reviewers completed title screening, full-text review and quality assessment of comparative studies in health professions education. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis of immediate and longer term knowledge scores were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 1013 titles were included. Most studies evaluated ARS in lectures (20 studies) and in undergraduates (14 studies). Fourteen studies reported statistically significant improvement in knowledge scores with ARS. Meta-analysis showed greater differences with non-randomised study design. Qualitative synthesis showed greater differences with non-interactive teaching comparators and in postgraduates. Six of 21 studies reported student reaction; 5 favoured ARS while 1 had mixed results. CONCLUSION: This review provides some evidence to suggest the effectiveness of ARS in improving learning outcomes. These findings are more striking when ARS teaching is compared to non-interactive sessions and when non-randomised study designs are used. This review highlights the importance of having high quality studies with balanced comparators available to those making curricular decisions.
BACKGROUND: Audience response systems (ARS) represent one approach to make classroom learning more active. Although ARS may have pedagogical value, their impact is still unclear. This systematic review aims to examine the effect of ARS on learning outcomes in health professions education. METHODS: After a comprehensive literature search, two reviewers completed title screening, full-text review and quality assessment of comparative studies in health professions education. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis of immediate and longer term knowledge scores were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 1013 titles were included. Most studies evaluated ARS in lectures (20 studies) and in undergraduates (14 studies). Fourteen studies reported statistically significant improvement in knowledge scores with ARS. Meta-analysis showed greater differences with non-randomised study design. Qualitative synthesis showed greater differences with non-interactive teaching comparators and in postgraduates. Six of 21 studies reported student reaction; 5 favoured ARS while 1 had mixed results. CONCLUSION: This review provides some evidence to suggest the effectiveness of ARS in improving learning outcomes. These findings are more striking when ARS teaching is compared to non-interactive sessions and when non-randomised study designs are used. This review highlights the importance of having high quality studies with balanced comparators available to those making curricular decisions.