Literature DB >> 33796806

Comparison of Active Learning Techniques: Audience Response Questions Versus Small Group Discussion on Immediate- and Long-term Knowledge Gain.

Jaime Jordan1,2,3, Babak Missaghi3, Amy Douglass3, Juliana Tolles3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Active learning techniques help with motivation, involvement, and retention during didactics. There are few studies comparing different active learning methods, and these have yielded mixed results. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of two active learning methods-small-group discussion and audience response system (ARS)-on immediate- and long-term knowledge gain.
METHODS: This was a prospective experimental study of emergency medicine (EM) subinterns and residents. Participants were randomized into two groups, and baseline knowledge was assessed with a multiple-choice pretest. Didactic sessions on salicylate toxicity and ocular trauma were given to both groups utilizing either small-group discussion or ARS. A crossover design was utilized to ensure that both groups received instruction by each method. A multiple-choice posttest was administered following the didactics and again 2 months later. Pre- and posttests were identical. All test items were written by an academic faculty member with advanced training in medical education and item writing and were based on the goals and objectives of the session. Test items were piloted with a reference group of learners. Didactic instructors were blinded to test items. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight subinterns and residents participated in the study. Both instructional methods showed immediate- and long-term knowledge gain. The linear mixed-effects model did not demonstrate any significant difference between instructional methods on immediate knowledge gain (mean difference = 0.18, p = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.52 to 0.88) or long-term knowledge gain (mean difference = -0.42, p = 0.36, 95% CI = -1.32 to 0.47).
CONCLUSION: In this small study, there was no significant difference between instructional methods on immediate- and long-term knowledge gain in EM subinterns and residents.
© 2020 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33796806      PMCID: PMC7995929          DOI: 10.1002/aet2.10464

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AEM Educ Train        ISSN: 2472-5390


  33 in total

1.  Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents.

Authors:  T Eric Schackow; Milton Chavez; Lauren Loya; Michael Friedman
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.756

2.  Audience response systems in medical student education benefit learners and presenters.

Authors:  Lina Nayak; Joseph P Erinjeri
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback.

Authors:  Jeff Cain; Esther P Black; Jürgen Rohr
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 2.047

4.  Active learning on the ward: outcomes from a comparative trial with traditional methods.

Authors:  Hegla Melo Prado; Gilliatt Hannois Falbo; Ana Rodrigues Falbo; José Natal Figueirôa
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 6.251

5.  Educational Outcomes of Small-Group Discussion Versus Traditional Lecture Format in Dental Students' Learning and Skills Acquisition.

Authors:  Ana Arias; Raymond Scott; Ove A Peters; Elizabeth McClain; Alan H Gluskin
Journal:  J Dent Educ       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.264

6.  Problem-based learning in comparison with lecture-based learning among medical students.

Authors:  Rizwan Faisal; Sher Bahadur; Laiyla Shinwari
Journal:  J Pak Med Assoc       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 0.781

7.  Comparison of active-learning strategies for motivational interviewing skills, knowledge, and confidence in first-year pharmacy students.

Authors:  Ana M Lupu; Autumn L Stewart; Christine O'Neil
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2012-03-12       Impact factor: 2.047

8.  Case-based discussion: assessment tool or teaching aid?

Authors:  R Jyothirmayi
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2012-08-11       Impact factor: 4.126

9.  Small group discussion: Students perspectives.

Authors:  Nachal Annamalai; Rajajeyakumar Manivel; Rajendran Palanisamy
Journal:  Int J Appl Basic Med Res       Date:  2015-08

10.  Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning.

Authors:  Jamie L Jensen; Tyler A Kummer; Patricia D d M Godoy
Journal:  CBE Life Sci Educ       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 3.325

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.