Anthony J Guarascio1, Branden D Nemecek2, David E Zimmerman3. 1. Duquesne University School of Pharmacy, Infectious Diseases Clinical Specialist, Bayer Learning Center, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, United States. Electronic address: guarascioa@duq.edu. 2. Duquesne University School of Pharmacy, Internal Medicine and Nephrology Clinical Specialist, Bayer Learning Center, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, United States. Electronic address: nemecekb@duq.edu. 3. Duquesne University School of Pharmacy, Emergency Medicine Clinical Specialist, Bayer Learning Center, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, United States. Electronic address: zimmerm6@duq.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Student response systems (SRSs) or "clickers" are common tools that lecturers can implement into didactic lectures. Socrative is a convenient and free SRS application that can be downloaded on personal handheld devices and used by faculty and students. It is unknown if students prefer using this application and what advantages or disadvantages can be seen with Socrative's use. PURPOSE: To measure student preference of standard SRS methods compared to Socrative as well as the impact of Socrative use on student engagement during delivery of clinical pharmacy instruction EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Standard SRS and Socrative incorporated lectures were presented to students during an infectious disease module. Students were given a survey at the end of the semester to determine the primary endpoint of preference for each application. The survey used a Likert scale of 1-5, with 1 = strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree. Secondary endpoints included assessing the number of questions asked, participation, and classroom time utilized. FINDINGS: A total of 114 surveys were completed and six were excluded due to discrepancies or reporting bias. A higher mean scoring for classroom facilitation of active learning (4.48 vs. 3.99, p < 0.0001) and student-reported active participation in class (4.45 vs. 3.60, p < 0.0001) was found for Socrative compared to SRSs, respectively. SUMMARY: In comparison with traditional SRS methods, students felt Socrative helped them to more actively participate in class and facilitated a better environment for asking and receiving answers to classroom questions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Student response systems (SRSs) or "clickers" are common tools that lecturers can implement into didactic lectures. Socrative is a convenient and free SRS application that can be downloaded on personal handheld devices and used by faculty and students. It is unknown if students prefer using this application and what advantages or disadvantages can be seen with Socrative's use. PURPOSE: To measure student preference of standard SRS methods compared to Socrative as well as the impact of Socrative use on student engagement during delivery of clinical pharmacy instruction EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Standard SRS and Socrative incorporated lectures were presented to students during an infectious disease module. Students were given a survey at the end of the semester to determine the primary endpoint of preference for each application. The survey used a Likert scale of 1-5, with 1 = strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree. Secondary endpoints included assessing the number of questions asked, participation, and classroom time utilized. FINDINGS: A total of 114 surveys were completed and six were excluded due to discrepancies or reporting bias. A higher mean scoring for classroom facilitation of active learning (4.48 vs. 3.99, p < 0.0001) and student-reported active participation in class (4.45 vs. 3.60, p < 0.0001) was found for Socrative compared to SRSs, respectively. SUMMARY: In comparison with traditional SRS methods, students felt Socrative helped them to more actively participate in class and facilitated a better environment for asking and receiving answers to classroom questions.