Rationale and Objectives
Audience response systems (ARS) have been proven to increase residents’ retention in the short and long terms. The purpose of this study was to determine what teaching faculty members know about the ARS at one institution, what the obstacles are to its use, and ways to increase its use.
Materials and Methods
An anonymous and voluntary survey was sent to teaching faculty members. Fifty-two faculty members received the survey request and were included in the study set. The survey included questions regarding the faculty members’ prior use of, understanding of, and ideas about ways to improve the ARS, as well as obstacles to its use.
Results
Thirty of 52 faculty members (58%) responded. Eight (27%) reported prior use of the ARS. Impediments to using the system more, for infrequent users, included “no need for it again,” that it was “a bit tedious to incorporate into lectures,” and time limitations. However, most users felt that the system was overall easy to use, and they did so by incorporating it into existing lectures. Perceptions that residents learned more effectively with the ARS motivated faculty members to use it more. They noted that residents seemed to like the ARS lectures more and were more engaged than with other didactic techniques. Faculty members would increase their use of the ARS if more information technology support were available, if training sessions were held, and if they had knowledge that residents preferred this lecture format.
Conclusions
Faculty members at the authors’ academic institution used its ARS infrequently but expressed an overall desire to use it more. They suggested methods that would increase their use of the device and were particularly motivated by residents’ satisfaction with their lectures. If their suggestions can be implemented, use of the ARS should increase.
Audience response systems (ARS) have been shown to result in improved learning outcomes through better short-term and long-term memory of lecture material as well as to generate excitement about teaching and learning . However, didactic lectures and hot seat–type conferences are the mainstay of postgraduate medical education in radiology residencies and unfortunately often do not include strategies for audience interaction, such as the use of ARS. The downsides of these lecture formats are that the first lacks active participation and can be boring, while the second can make trainees feel embarrassed or uncomfortable. ARS-based lectures incorporate audience participation in an anonymous fashion, which encourages active learning and removes the potential for embarrassment.
Current radiology residents are in either generation X (born 1963–1981) or the millennial generation (born 1982–2000). Generation Xers tend to be technologically savvy, to like informality, and to learn quickly . Those of the millennial generation are eager to learn and enjoy questioning things; they tend to have high self-esteem and are confident. Both generations have had high exposure to video games, computers, and cell phones. In contrast, the teachers, typically members of the baby boom generation (born 1945–1962), may not be as technologically savvy, potentially feel that trainees should “do what I did” and possibly bristle at the attitudes of trainees who are not afraid to show their independence and creativity . This generational gap can result in dissatisfaction on the parts of both the audience and the teacher, specifically in the lecture styles and in the levels of involvement and interest expressed by the attendees. Many trainees desire interactive, interesting, and unique teaching methods, whereas many faculty members often feel more comfortable continuing with the traditional didactic lecture formats when teaching.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Materials and methods
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Results
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Users
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Nonusers
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Ways to Increase Use of the ARS
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Table 1
Which of the Following Would Encourage More or Less Use of the ARS?
Likelihood of Change of Use of the ARS Situation Much More Likely More Likely Equal Less Likely Much Less Likely No Response Mandated by leadership 5 (17%) 11 (37%) 6 (20%) 5 (17%) 1 (3%) 2 (7%) Dedicated IT person available to help you make the lecture 8 (27%) 13 (43%) 8 (27%) 0 0 2 (7%) Dedicated IT person available during lecture times 7 (23%) 14 (47%) 7 (23%) 0 0 2 (7%) You were given a training session on ARS use 14 (47%) 11 (37%) 4 (13%) 0 0 1 (3%) There was a departmental monetary bonus linked with ARS use 5 (17%) 8 (27%) 9 (30%) 2 (7%) 4 (13%) 2 (7%) There was a perceived benefit to academic promotion (building your teaching portfolio) 6 (20%) 9 (30%) 13 (43%) 0 2 (7%) 1 (3%) You knew the residents preferred the ARS lecture format 13 (43%) 14 (47%) 1 (3%) 0 0 3 (10%)
ARS, audience response system; IT, information technology.
Percentages do not total 100% because of rounding.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Discussion
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Appendix
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
ARS Questionnaire Sent to Teaching Faculty Members
Question Available Responses 1. Have you used the audience response (key pad) system (ARS) in a lecture for radiology residents before?
2. How many times have you used the ARS in your lectures?
3. If you used the ARS once, what is the impediment to using it again? (please be as specific as possible in your response) Free text 4. How did you find out about the ARS? (choose any and all that apply)
5. What is your motivation for using the ARS? (choose any and all that apply)
6. How did you implement the ARS into your lectures?
7. What was your impression of the ease of use of ARS?
8. How do you think the residents feel about your ARS lecture compared to your prior didactic format?
9. What do you feel was the level of engagement of the residents in your ARS lecture compared to your prior didactic format? (go to question 11 next)
10. Did you know our department had the ARS?
11. For the following series of questions, would you be more or less likely to use ARS if the following were TRUE? For each, state on a scale from much more likely to much less likely. If…
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Schackow T.E., Chavez M., Loya L., et. al.: Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med 2004; 36: pp. 496-504.
2. Rubio E.I., Bassignani M.J., White M.A., et. al.: Effect of an audience response system on resident learning and retention of lecture material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: pp. W319-W322.
3. Uhari M., Renko M., Soini H.: Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Med Educ 2003; 3: pp. 12.
4. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER). The generations in today’s workplace: who they are. 2008. Avaliable at: http://www.lynchburgchamber.org/media/9990/wfprofessionaldevelopment/Workplace%20generation%20gap.doc . Accessed February 6, 2009.
5. Bickel J., Brown A.: Generation X: implications for faculty recruitment and development in academic health centers. Acad Radiol 2005; 80: pp. 205-210.
6. Copeland H.L., Longworth D.L., Hewson M.G., et. al.: Successful lecturing: a prospective study to validate attributes of the effective medical lecture. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: pp. 366-371.
7. Handfield-Jones R., Nasmith L., Steinert Y., et. al.: Creativity in medical education: the use of innovative techniques in clinical teaching. Med Teach 1993; 15: pp. 3-10.
8. Nasmith L., Steinert Y.: The evaluation of a workshop to promote interactive lecturing. Teach Learn Med 2001; 13: pp. 43-48.
9. Elashvili A., Denehy G.E., Dawson D.V., et. al.: Evaluation of an audience response system in a preclinical operative dentistry course. J Dent Educ 2008; 72: pp. 1296-1303.
10. Steinert Y., Snell L.: Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Med Teach 1999; 21: pp. 37-42.
11. Nayak L., Erinjeri J.P.: Audience response systems in medical student education benefit learners and presenters. Acad Radiol 2008; 15: pp. 383-389.
12. Collins J.: Audience response systems: technology to engage learners. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5: pp. 993-1000.
13. Papp K., Miller F.: The answer to stimulating lectures is the question. Med Teach 1996; 18: pp. 147-149.
14. Das M., El-Sabban F., Bener A.: Student and faculty perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal teacher in a classroom setting. Med Teach 1996; 18: pp. 141-146.
15. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Radiology residency program requirements. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/RRC_420/420_prindex.asp . Accessed February 6, 2009.
16. American Board of Radiology. Overview of ABR changes: the exam of the future. Available at, http://theabr.org/present/overview_changes_2.pdf . Accessed February 5, 2009
17. Amis E.S., Baker S.R., Becker G.J., et. al.: Panel discussions in radiology: changes in radiology training and new examination format. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191: pp. W217-W230.
18. McLaughlin K., Mandin H.: A schematic approach to diagnosing and resolving lecturalgia. Med Educ 2001; 35: pp. 1135-1142.