| Literature DB >> 24203861 |
Karen Jerardi1, Lauren Solan, Dominick Deblasio, Jennifer O'Toole, Christine White, Connie Yau, Heidi Sucharew, Melissa D Klein.
Abstract
Adult learning theory suggests that meaningful engagement impacts learning. To evaluate the impact of resident-led interactive conferences on satisfaction, engagement and knowledge acquisition. A prospective study at a paediatric academic institution compared educational conferences in two formats. Control conferences were PowerPoint(®) lectures and intervention conferences included multimedia, audience participation and faculty mentorship. Learner and presenter satisfaction and learner engagement were assessed by post-conference surveys. Knowledge was assessed via pre- and post-conference open-ended questions; matched pre- and post-questions were analyzed. Control and intervention groups' satisfaction and engagement were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Comparison of proportion of learners with improved post-conference knowledge score was analyzed with the Chi square test. There were 181 control and 170 intervention surveys collected. Learners' median satisfaction (4 vs. 5, p = .03) and engagement (4 vs. 5, p < .01) ratings improved in the intervention group. Presenters rated audience engagement higher during the intervention conferences (median 3 vs. 4, p = .01). Knowledge acquisition, compared for matched surveys only, was not significantly different between the groups. Learner and presenter satisfaction and learner engagement were higher for the interactive format. While knowledge acquisition was unchanged, greater satisfaction encourages the use of interactive conferences.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24203861 PMCID: PMC3824747 DOI: 10.1007/s40037-013-0074-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Perspect Med Educ ISSN: 2212-2761
Summary of learners’ attitude survey questions
| Quality of knowledge | Satisfaction with educational format | Engagement | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Intervention |
| Control | Intervention |
| Control | Intervention |
| |
| All learners | |||||||||
|
| 180 | 169 | 181 | 170 | 181 | 170 | |||
| Median | 4 | 4 | .22 | 4 | 5 | .03 | 4 | 5 | <01 |
| Medical students | |||||||||
|
| 35 | 34 | 35 | 34 | 35 | 34 | |||
| Median | 4 | 5 | .02 | 5 | 5 | .38 | 4 | 5 | .20 |
| Interns | |||||||||
|
| 79 | 79 | 80 | 79 | 80 | 79 | |||
| Median | 4 | 4 | .36 | 4 | 5 | .03 | 4 | 5 | <.01 |
| Senior Residents | |||||||||
|
| 66 | 56 | 66 | 57 | 66 | 57 | |||
| Median | 4 | 4 | .39 | 4 | 5 | .55 | 4 | 5 | .01 |
Data presented as median for Likert scale scores ranging from 1 = lowest to 5 = highest. The 25th and 75th percentile was 4 and 5 for all questions
p values for difference between intervention and control groups from Wilcoxon rank sum test